CALIFORNIA 
AGRICULTURAL  EXTENSION  SERVICE 

CIRCULAR  5 
NOVEMBER,  1926 


SERIES  ON  CALIFORNIA  CROPS  AND  PRICES 


LETTUCE 


H.  R.  WELLMAN 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


Cooperative  Extension  work  in  Agriculture  and  Home  Economics,  College  of  Agriculture, 
University  of  California,  and  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  cooperating.  Dis- 
tributed in  furtherance  of  the  Acts  of  Congress  of  May  8  and  June  30,  1914.  B.  H.  Crocheron, 
Director,  California  Agricultural  Extension  Service. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1926 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Summary 3 

Introduction 6 

Acreage 6 

Production 8 

Trend  of  lettuce  shipments,  United  States 8 

Main  lettuce-producing  states 10 

Main  Iceberg  lettuce-producing  states 11 

Trend  of  shipments  in  main  Iceberg  lettuce-producing  states 11 

Big  Boston  lettuce-producing  states 12 

Lettuce-producing  areas  in  California 14 

Seasonal  movement 16 

Seasonal  movement  of  lettuce,  United  States 16 

Competition  between  Iceberg  and  Big  Boston  shipments 16 

Seasonal  movement  of  California  lettuce 18 

Competition  between  Iceberg  lettuce-producing  sections 18 

Distribution 25 

Most  of  the  lettuce  is  marketed  in  large  cities 25 

Iceberg  lettuce  more  widely  distributed  than  Big  Boston  lettuce 25 

Distribution  of  Imperial  Valley  lettuce 26 

Important  markets  for  California  lettuce 28 

Consumption 30 

Prices  of  Iceberg  lettuce 33 

Chicago  jobbing  prices  representative  of  those  prevailing  in  the  Eastern 

markets 33 

Relation  between  Chicago  jobbing  prices  and  prices  f.o.b.  cash  track 

Imperial  Valley 33 

Price  characteristics 35 

Trend  of  prices 40 

Tables 42 

Sources  of  current  information 50 


LETTUCE 

H.  R.  WELLMANi 


SUMMARY 


The  two  outstanding  developments  in  the  head  lettuce  industry 
during  recent  years  have  been  (1)  a  rapid  increase  in  production, 
particularly  in  the  western  states,  and  (2)  an  equally  rapid  increase 
in  demand  which  has  prevented  a  fall  in  price. 

In  1925  almost  seven  times  as  many  cars  of  head  lettuce  were 
shipped  as  in  1917,  and  almost  twice  as  many  as  in  1921.  This  large 
increase  was  caused  mainly  by  the  rapid  expansion  in  the  production 
of  Iceberg  lettuce  which  is  produced  almost  exclusively  in  the  irri- 
gated sections  of  the  West.  There  has  been  practically  no  increase 
in  the  carlot  shipments  of  Big  Boston  lettuce  during  the  past  four 
years,  but  the  carlot  shipments  of  Iceberg  lettuce  have  more  than 
doubled.  At  the  present  time  Iceberg  lettuce  constitutes  approxi- 
mately 80  per  cent  of  the  total  United  States  commercial  lettuce  crop 
as  compared  with  38  per  cent  in  1917. 

The  demand  for  lettuce  has  kept  pace  with  the  rapid  increase  in 
production.  Although  the  price  is  just  as  high,  people  are  eating 
almost  twice  as  much  lettuce  as  they  did  five  years  ago.  Even  now, 
however,  the  per  capita  consumption  for  the  United  States  as  a  whole 
is  not  large,  being  only  a  little  more  than  five  heads  per  year  in  1925. 
The  chief  cause  for  this  low  consumption  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  many  people  do  not  eat  head  lettuce  at  all,  and  many  others  eat 
it  only  occasionally,  mainly  because  they  can  not  purchase  it  readily 
throughout  the  year.  In  the  large  cities  in  which  lettuce  is  available 
most  of  the  time,  the  per  capita  consumption  is  from  two  to  three 
times  that  for  the  United  States  as  a  whole.  Just  how  much  the  total 
consumption  can  be  increased  by  the  further  development  of  the 
smaller  markets  is  uncertain.  Lettuce  shippers,  particularly  in  the 
western  states,  have  already  made  considerable  progress  in  develop- 
ing the  smaller  cities  into  carlot  markets.  This  is  illustrated  by  the 
fact  that  50  per  cent  more  markets  received  direct  carlot  shipments 
from  the  Imperial  Valley  during  the  1925-26  season  than  during  the 
1922-23  season.  Further  progress  is  hindered  by  the  lack  of  agencies 
in  the  undeveloped  markets  that  are  able  to  handle  lettuce  in  carlots. 


1  Extension  Specialist  in  Agricultural  Economics. 


4  CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE  [CiRC.  5 

California  is  the  most  important  head  lettuce-producing  state  in 
the  Union.  In  1925  the  shipments  from  this  state  amounted  to  over 
one-half  of  the  total  shipments  and  almost  three-fourths  of  the  Iceberg 
shipments.  Arizona  and  Colorado,  however,  are  rapidly  becoming 
important  Iceberg  lettuce-shipping  states.  During  recent  years,  the 
shipments  from  each  of  these  states  have  increased  even  faster  than 
those  from  California. 

Almost  one-half  of  the  California  lettuce  is  produced  in  the 
Imperial  Valley,  which  is  the  largest  single  lettuce-producing  section 
in  the  United  States.  During  the  past  few  years,  however,  shipments 
from  the  counties  of  Monterey,  Santa  Barbara,  and  Santa  Cruz  have 
increased  more  rapidly  than  those  from  the  Imperial  Valley  so  that 
the  coast  district,  which  includes  these  counties,  is  soon  likely  to  equal 
the  Imperial  Valley  in  lettuce  production. 

Lettuce  is  an  all-year  around  product.  Active  shipments  of  both 
Big  Boston  and  Iceberg  lettuce  continue  throughout  the  year.  The 
heaviest  shipping  seasons  of  these  two  types  of  lettuce,  however,  occur 
at  different  periods.  Thus  they  supplement  one  another  and  make  it 
possible  to  place  a  fairly  uniform  supply  of  lettuce  on  the  consuming 
markets  every  month  of  the  year. 

California  is  the  only  state  that  ships  lettuce  continuously  through- 
out the  year.  Fortunately  the  heaviest  shipments  occur  at  the 
times  when  the  shipments  from  other  states  are  lightest,  although 
there  is  no  period  during  the  year  when  California  lettuce  does  not 
meet  with  considerable  competition. 

A  study  of  lettuce  prices  indicates  that  certain  practices  are 
desirable : 

(1)  It  usually  pays  to  grow  lettuce  in  a  given  section  only  at  those 
times  when  good  quality  lettuce  can  be  produced,  because,  with  the 
exception  of  times  of  abnormally  high  price,  poor  quality  lettuce 
seldom  brings  a  sufficient  price  to  net  any  profit  to  the  grower.  In 
addition,  price  changes  can  not  as  yet  be  forecast  sufficient  far  in 
advance  to  enable  growers  to  have  their  lettuce  ready  for  market  at 
just  the  times  prices  are  high.  Prices  over  the  past  six  years  have 
averaged  as  high  at  one  season  as  at  another.  It  is  true,  of  course,  that 
during  a  given  year  prices  fluctuate  considerably,  being  high  at  some 
periods  and  low  at  others,  but  these  high  and  low  prices  have  not  been 
repeated  at  the  same  periods  year  after  year. 

(2)  Because  of  the  inability  to  forecast  price  changes  sufficiently 
far  in  advance,  lettuce  should  be  planted  so  as  to  mature  gradually 
over  as  long  a  period  as  is  consistent  with  the  production  of  good 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


quality.  By  so  doing,  growers  may  avoid  having  all  of  their  lettuce 
sell  on  a  low  market  and  instead  obtain  the  average  of  the  high  and 
low  prices  for  the  season,  thus  minimizing  the  risk  caused  by  the  wide 
price  fluctuations  from  day  to  day  and  from  week  to  week. 

(3)  Lettuce  growing  is  likely  to  prove  more  profitable  to  those 
growers  who  undertake  it  as  a  long-time  proposition  than  to  those  who 
''jump  into  it  one  year  and  out  the  next." 

Any  forecast  of  the  future  of  the  lettuce  industry  is  particularly 
hazardous  because  it  is  a  relativel}^  unstable  crop.  The  future  con- 
sumption will  probably  increase  provided  small  markets  are  reached 
by  the  marketing  agencies.  There  may  also  be  an  increase  of  per 
capita  consumption  in  the  large  cities.  The  people  are  being  con- 
stantly urged  by  dieticians  to  eat  more  leafy  vegetables.  This  has 
already  had  considerable  effect  in  increasing  consumption,  but  the 
full  effect  has  probably  not  yet  been  reached. 

Whether  this  increasing  consumption  will  keep  pace  with  the 
increasing  production  of  the  future  is  difficult  to  forecast.  In  many 
sections  lettuce  has  been  grown  for  only  a  few  years,  and  there  are 
undoubtedly  new  areas  that  may  become  important  lettuce-producing, 
districts  but  which  have  not  yet  been  planted  to  this  crop.  Just 
what  will  happen  in  each  of  the  different  sections  during  the  next  few 
years  is  uncertain.  Even  in  the  older  localities  that  are  well  estab- 
lished, lettuce  growing  is  less  stable  than  fruit  growing  because  the 
growers  can  get  into  and  out  of  the  lettuce  business  rather  quickly. 
Usually  between  three  and  four  months  elapse  from  the  time  it  is 
planted  until  it  is  harvested.  Furthermore,  in  most  of  the  sections 
in  California,  outside  of  the  Imperial  Valley,  and  to  a  considerable 
extent  in  Arizona  and  Idaho,  two  and  sometimes  three  crops  of  lettuce 
are  raised  on  the  same  land  during  the  year. 

The  present  situation  is  favorable  for  lettuce  growing  in  California, 
but  this  condition  can  not  be  expected  to  continue  if  a  sudden  increase 
in  production  should,  for  any  reason,  take  place,  particularly  if  such 
an  increase  should  greatly  accentuate  the  peaks  of  shipments. 

The  lettuce  grower  should  not  expect  increased  prices  for  his 
product  during  the  forthcoming  years,  because  the  present  level  of 
prices  will  probably  stimulate  production  sufficiently  to  supply  any 
reasonable  increase  in  demand.  A  conservative  expansion  in  the 
lettuce  industry  in  California  appears  to  be  justified,  but  it  should 
be  made  upon  land  primarily  adapted  to  the  production  of  this  crop. 
Lettuce  growing  is  likely  to  be  profitable  only  where  a  high  yield  of 
good  quality  lettuce  can  be  obtained  at  a  relatively  low  cost. 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE  [CiRC.  5 


INTRODUCTION2 

This  publication  deals  solely  with  head  lettuce  which  is  the  pre- 
dominant commercial  lettuce  crop.  Leaf  lettuce  is  grown  mainly  as 
a  greenhouse  crop  near  the  large  cities  and  is  relatively  unimportant 
from  the  standpoint  of  carlot  distribution. 

The  two  principal  commercial  types  of  head  lettuce  grown  in  the 
United  States  are  Big  Boston  and  New  York  or  Iceberg.  In  this  pub- 
lication, Iceberg  is  the  name  used  to  denote  the  latter  type  as  it  is  the 
one  generally  used  by  the  trade  and  in  the  market  news  reports  of  the 
Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics.  There  are  a  number  of  varieties 
included  in  this  type,  but  in  commercial  transactions  practically  no 
distinction  is  made  between  them. 

These  two  types  of  head  lettuce  are  somewhat  distinct  from  the 
standpoint  of  market  requirements  since  Big  Boston  lettuce  forms  a 
loose  head,  and  Iceberg  lettuce,  a  firm  head. 

The  producing  areas  of  these  two  types  of  head  lettuce  are  also 
distinct.  Iceberg  lettuce  is  produced  almost  exclusively  in  the  irri- 
gated sections  of  the  West,  while  Big  Boston  lettuce  is  grown  mainly 
in  the  Eastern  and  Southeastern  states  (fig.  1).  Attempts  to  grow 
Iceberg  lettuce  in  these  states  have  generally  been  unsuccessful  as 
climatic  conditions  during  most  of  the  growing  season  in  these  sections 
are  not  favorable  to  the  development  of  firm  heads. ^ 


ACREAGE 

In  1925,  86,400  acres  in  the  United  States  were  devoted  to  the  com- 
mercial production  of  head  lettuce,  98  per  cent  of  which  were  in  the 
six  western  states  of  Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  Idaho,  New 
Mexico,  Washington  and  in  the  five  eastern  states  of  Florida,  New 
Jersey,  New  York,  North  Carolina,  and  South  Carolina  (fig.  1).  The 
combined  acreage  in  the  four  states  of  Arizona,  California,  Colorado, 
and  New  York  amounted  to  70,740  acres,  or  82  per  cent  of  the  total ; 
California  alone  had  49,320  acres,  or  57  per  cent  of  the  total. 


2  Acknowledgment.  Tlie  author  of  this  circular  wishes  to  express  his  thanks 
and  indebtedness  to  the  following  organizations  which  have  generously  con- 
tributed from  their  data  and  their  time :  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 
of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  California  Cooperative  Crop 
Eeporting  Service,  American  Fruit  Growers,  Inc.,  of  California,  Loma  Fruit 
Company,  and  the  California  Vegetable  Union. 

3Hauck,  Charles  W.,  Marketing  lettuce,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bui.  1412:6,  1926. 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


CD 

arq 


® 


pi 

02     CO 

e»  fD  ^ 
"■  P  d 


•    P 


P 

CQ 

w 

W 
o 


8  CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE  [ClRC.  5 

Of  the  86,400  acres,  69,600  (81  per  cent)  were  devoted  to  the 
production  of  Iceberg  lettuce,  and  16,800  (19  per  cent),  to  the  produc- 
tion of  Big  Boston  lettuce.  Ninety-nine  per  cent  of  the  Iceberg  lettuce 
acreage  was  in  the  six  states  of  Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  Idaho, 
New  Mexico,  and  Washington,  and  71  per  cent  was  in  California 
alone ;  while  approximately  92  per  cent  of  the  Big  Boston  lettuce 
acreage  was  in  the  five  states  of  Florida,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  North 
Carolina,  and  South  Carolina. 

The  total  commercial  acreage  of  head  lettuce  in  the  United  States 
increased  from  16,870  acres  in  1918  to  86,400  acres  in  1925,  an  increase 
of  412  per  cent  in  seven  years.  The  greatest  expansion  occurred  in  the 
western  states,  where  the  acreage  increased  ■  from  7770  acres  in  1918 
to  69,600  acres  in  1925,  an  increase  of  796  per  cent,  as  compared  with 
an  increase  of  85  per  cent  in  Big  Boston  lettuce  acreage  during  the 
same  period. 

California's  lettuce  acreage  increased  from  7,140  acres  in  1918  to 
49,320  acres  in  1925,  an  increase  of  591  per  cent.  The  acreage  of 
Iceberg  lettuce  in  the  other  western  states  increased  from  630  in  1918 
to  20,280  in  1925,  an  increase  of  2,219  per  cent.  The  most  rapid  expan- 
sion in  the  Iceberg  lettuce-producing  states,  other  than  California, 
occurred  in  1922,  when  the  acreage  increased  272  per  cent  over  the 
preceding  year. 

PRODUCTION 

Trend  of  Lettuce  Shipments,  United  States. — The  production  of 
lettuce  in  the  United  States,  as  shown  by  the  carlot  shipments,  has 
been  increasing  very  rapidly.  In  1925  almost  seven  times  as  many 
cars  w«re  shipped  as  in  1917  and  almost  twice  as  many  as  in  1921 
(%.  2). 

Of  the  37,040  cars  shipx)ed  in  1925,  80  per  cent  were  of  the  Iceberg 
type  and  20  per  cent  of  the  Big  Boston  type.  This  condition  is  almost 
the  reverse  of  that  existing  in  1917  when  62  per  cent  of  the  5,428  cars 
shipped  in  that  year  were  of  the  Big  Boston  type,  and  only  38  per  cent 
of  the  Iceberg  type.  The  rapid  increase  of  Iceberg  shipments  in  1920 
when  the  shipments  almost  tripled  those  of  the  preceding  year  placed 
them  above  the  Big  Boston  shipments,  a  position  which  they  have 
continued  to  maintain. 

Figure  2  shows  clearly  that  the  production  of  Iceberg  lettuce  has 
increased  much  more  rapidly  than  that  of  Big  Boston  lettuce.  From 
1917  to  1922,  the  shipments  of  Big  Boston  lettuce  experienced  a  fairly 
uniform  rate  of  growth,  the  normal  rate  during  this  period  being 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


20.4  per  cent  per  year.*  Since  1923,  however  the  total  amount  of  Big 
Boston  lettuce  moving  into  consumption  has  probably  not  increased. 
The  carlot  shipments  decreased  approximately  19  per  cent  between 
1923  and  1925,  but  the  volume  shipped  to  market  by  truck  has 
undoubtedly  increased,  as  the  total  acreage  planted  to  Big  Boston 
lettuce  was  only  4.4  per  cent  smaller  in  1925  than  in  1923.  The  main 
truck  shipments  of  Big  Boston  lettuce  come  from  New  Jersey  and 

Carlot  Shipments  of  Lettuce,  United  States,  1917-1925 


Total 


S 


Big  Boston    £  S 
o  to 


Iceberg 


CO 

a> 

O 

r-l 

C\l 

to 

•* 

u: 

M 

r-* 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

o> 

o> 

Oi 

a> 

Cf> 

Oi 

CD 

o 

r-i 

cH 

fH 

iH 

t-t 

fH 

r-4 

iH 

Fig.  2. — The  remarkable  increase  in  total  lettuce  shipments  in  the  United 
States  was  caused  mainly  by  the  rapid  expansion  of  Iceberg  lettuce  production 
in  the  western  states. 

Data   compiled  from  table  7. 

4  A  straight  line  of  trend  was  fitted  to  the  logarithms  of  the  Big  Boston 
lettuce  shipment  figures  for  the  years  1917-1922  by  the  method  of  least  squares. 
The  equation  for  the  line  of  trend  is  log.  y  =  3.55033  +  .08063  x. 


10 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION   SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


southeastern  New  York  and  are  unloaded  in  New  York  City.  That 
a  much  larger  proportion  of  New  Jersey  lettuce  is  now  being  moved 
by  truck  than  formerly  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  carlot  shipments 
were  only  3  per  cent  larger  in  1925  than  in  1923,  while  acreage  was 
77  per  cent  larger. 

Iceberg  lettuce  shipments,  on  the  other  hand,  have  increased  with 
remarkable  uniformity  since  1920,  the  normal  rate  of  increase  being 
29.7  per  cent  a  year.^ 

In  1925  carlot  shipments  of  Iceberg  lettuce  were  265  per  cent 
larger  than  in  1920,  while  the  carlot  shipments  of  Big  Boston  lettuce 
were  only  31  per  cent  larger. 


Relative  Importance  of  Main  Lettuce-Shipping  States,  1925 
o  o  o  o  o 


Calif. 

N.Y, 

Ariz. 

Colo, 

Fla, 

Vfash, 

S.C, 

N.C, 

K.J. 
Idaho 

Others 
Total 


Per 
Cars     cent  ^ 
iil608     58.2 


3819  10.3 

3477  9.4 

3061  8.3 

1510  4.1 

817  2,2 

700  1.9 

537  1.5 

469  1.3 

407  1.1 

635  1.7 

37040  100.0 


Fig.  3. 


-California  produces  more  lettuce  than  all  other  states  combined. 
Data   from  table   7. 


Main  Lettuce-Producing  States. — California  produces  more  lettuce 
than  all  other  states  combined.  As  shown  in  figure  3,  the  shipments 
in  1925  were  58.2  per  cent  of  the  total  carlot  shipments  in  the  United 
States.  New  York  is  the  next  most  important  lettuce-producing  state, 
followed  by  Arizona,  Colorado,  and  Florida.  The  ten  states  shown  in 
figure  3  produced  approximately  98  per  cent  of  the  United  States' 
lettuce  crop. 

5  A  straight  line  of  trend  was  fitted  to  the  logarithms  of  the  Iceberg  lettuce 
shipment  figures  for  the  years  1920-1925  by  the  method  of  least  squares.  The 
equation  of  the  line  of  trend  is  log.  y  =  3.91995  +  .11284  a;. 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


11 


Main  Iceherg  Lettuce-Producing  States. — Iceberg  lettuce  is  pro- 
duced on  a  commercial  basis  in  10  of  the  11  western  states.^  Only  the 
five  states  of  California,  Arizona,  Colorado,  Washington,  and  Idaho, 
however,  are  of  any  considerable  importance  in  this  regard.  These 
five  states  shipped  99.2  per  cent  of  the  Iceberg  lettuce  in  1925  (fig.  4). 

Eelative  Importance  of  Main  Iceberg  Lettuce-Shipping  States,  1925 


Per  o 
Cars         cent 
Calif.      21608         73.0 


Ariz. 

Colo. 
Wash. 

Idaho 


Others          250 
Total       29620 

Fig.  4. — Approximately  all  of  the  Iceberg  lettuce  is  produced  in  five  western 

states.    California  alone  produces  almost  three-fourths  of  the  total. 

Data   compiled  from  table   7. 


The  three  states  of  California,  Arizona,  and  Colorado  shipped  95 
per  cent  of  this  type  of  lettuce,  and  California  alone  shipped  73 
per  cent.  California's  shipments  were  more  than  six  times  as  large 
as  those  from  Arizona  and  more  than  seven  times  as  large  as  those 
from  Colorado,  the  two  next  most  important  Iceberg  lettuce-producing 
states. 

Trend  of  Shipments  in  Main  Iceherg  Lettuce-Producing  States. — 
Prior  to  1920  practically  all  of  the  Iceberg  lettuce  was  produced  in 
California,  less  than  70  cars  a  year  being  shipped  from  other  sections. 
Since  1920  other  western  states,  mainly  Arizona,  Colorado,  Washing- 
ton, and  Idaho,  have  become  important  lettuce-producing  sections. 
The  total  shipments  of  Iceberg  lettuce  from  the  states  other  than  Cali- 
fornia have  increased  even  more  rapidly  than  those  from  California 
during  the  past  five  years  (fig.  5).  From  1920  to  1925,  California's 
shipments  increased  194  per  cent,  and  the  shipments  from  other  states 
increased  947  per  cent.  Arizona  and  Colorado  have  experienced  the 
most  rapid  continuous  increase  (fig.  6).     Up  to  and  including  1923, 


6  Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  IdaJio,  Nevada,  New  Mexico,  Oregon,  Utah, 
Washington  and  Wyoming.  In  1922  one  car  of  lettuce  was  shipped  from 
Montana.  New  Mexico  reported  1500'  acres  of  lettuce  in  1925,  but  shipped 
only  158  cars. 


12 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


the  shipments  from  Washington  and  Idaho  also  increased  rapidly 
(fig.  7).  Since  1923,  however,  the  shipments  from  these  two  states 
have  declined,  Idaho's  shipments  in  1925  being  67  per  cent  less  than 
in  1923,  and  Washington's  shipments  in  1925  being  24  per  cent  less 
than  in  1923. 

Carlot  Shipments  of  Iceberg  Lettuce,  California  and  other  States, 

1917-1925 


Calif, 


Others 


to 

r-t 

•H 

CO 

o 

^ 

CO 

O 

CO 

r-i 

Ui 

to 

lO 

iri 

^i' 

r-i 

CO 

o 

tt     O 

o 

c- 

to 

CO 

t- 

iH 

s 

U    CM 

CVl 

CM 

c^ 

c;> 

a> 

in 

iH 

05 

•H 

r-i 

CM 

in 

to 

CO 

ui 

t- 

c- 

O 

<o 

CM 

CO 

<o 

to 

CO 

•>* 

^ 

in 

to 

rH 

c^ 

CM 

to 

rH 

in 

O 

iH 

to 

ID 

Ti< 

00 

260 


200 


100 
90 
80 
70 
60 

1  50 

I 

;4o 
» 

30 


20 


10 
9 

8 

7 


Cal 

ifbrnia 

/ 

^ 

A 

y^ 

i 

/^ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

^* 

/ 

1 

i 

/ 

^ 

/ 
/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 
f 

^hers 

/ 

/ 

i 

Fig.  5. — The  production  of  Iceberg  lettuce  in  sections  outside  of  California 

has  increased  even  more  rapidly  than  in  California. 

Data   compiled  from  table   8. 


Big  Boston  Lettuce-Producing  States. — Approximately  95  per  cent 
of  the  United  States '  shipments  of  Big  Boston  lettuce  originate  in  the 
five  states  shown  in  figure  8.  New  York  was  the  most  important  ship- 
ping state  for  this  type  of  lettuce  in  1925,  followed  by  Florida,  South 
Carolina,  North  Carolina,  and  New  Jersey. 


1926J 


LETTUCE 


13 


Lettuce  shipments  from  the  four  states  of  Florida,  South  Carolina, 
North  Carolina,  and  New  Jersey,  were  smaller  in  1925  than  in  1922/ 
In  three  of  these  states,  Florida,  South  Carolina,  and  New  Jersey, 
the  peak  of  shipments  was  reached  in  1922,  and  in  North  Carolina  it 

Carlot  Shipments  of  Iceberg  Lettuce,  Arizona  and  Colorado,  1917-1925 


t- 

CD 

o> 

O 

rH 

CM 

to 

^ 

lO 

^ 

•H 

iH 

CM 

CO 

CM 

CM 

^ 

CM 

a 

o> 

o> 

o> 

o> 

Oi 

o> 

o> 

o> 

Fig.  6. — Arizona  and  Colorado  are  rapidly  becoming  important  Iceberg 

lettuce-shipping  states. 

Data  from  table   7. 


was  reached  the  following  year.  The  shipments  from  New  York  have 
remained  at  approximately  the  same  level  since  1923.  Florida  is  the 
only  one  of  these  five  states  that  shows  a  decline  in  shipments  every 
year  since  1922. 


7  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  a  greater  proportion  of  New  Jersey 's 
lettuce,  in  particular,  is  being  moved  by  truck. 


14 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


Lettuce-Producing  Areas  in  California. — In  1925  carlot  shipments 
of  lettuce  originated  in  25  of  the  58  counties  in  California.  The 
principal  lettuce-producing  districts  in  order  of  their  importance  are : 
(1)  the  Imperial  Valley,  (2)  the  coast  counties,  extending  from 
Santa  Barbara  County  on  the  south  to  Contra  Costa  County  on  the 
north,  (3)  the  southern  California  counties,  j^rincipally  Los  Angeles, 
Ventura,  and  San  Diego,  and  (4)  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin 
valley  counties.  Almost  one-half  of  California's  shipments  in  1925 
originated  in  the  Imperial  Valley,  and  approximately  86  per  cent 
originated  in  the  territory  included  in  the  Imperial  Valley  and  coast 
counties  (fig.  9).  The  interior  valley  counties  are  a  relatively  unim- 
portant lettuce-producing  district — only  3.2  per  cent  of  California's 
shipments  originated  in  this  district  in  1925. 

Carlot   Shipments   of   Iceberg  Lettuce,   Idaho   and   Washington,   1917-1925 

O  O  rS 


Idaho 
Wash. 


u 

o  o 


in 

o 

o> 

iH 

CVJ 

t- 

CVJ 

CO 

CO 

xd* 

CO 

o 

r-\ 

CO 

CVJ 

in 

Tf 

in 

yi 

^ 
^ 

Q 

^y/^ 

X 

Q 

J 

y^ 

X 

7 

ft 

^ 

vv 

p^^ 

A 

'^i 

o 

Wa.shing^oi 

n— i/ 

1 

• 

> 

> 

/ 

/ 

/ 

'■^-. 

8 

i 

/ 

daho 

2 

f 
/ 

/ 

t 

/ 

i 

o 

iH 

CM 

to 

-^ 

in 

CVJ 

CU 

OJ 

CM 

CM 

CM 

(Si 

cn 

C3> 

o> 

<n 

c» 

Fig-  7. — Lettuce  shipments  from  Idaho  and  Washington  reached  the  highest 

point  in  1923  and  have  since  declined. 

Data  from  table   7. 


The  greatest  increase  in  lettuce  shipments  during  the  past  six 
years  has  taken  place  in  the  coast  counties  (fig.  10) .  Only  90  cars  were 
shipped  from  these  counties  in  1920  as  compared  v^ith  8,211  ears  in 
1925,  an  increase  of  812  per  cent.  During  this  same  period  the 
Imperial  Valley  shipments  increased  251  per  cent,  the  interior  valley 
counties'  shipments  increased  142  per  cent,  and  the  southern  Call- 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


15 


fornia  counties'  shipments  decreased  41  per  cent.  During  the  past 
two  years  the  shipments  from  the  Imperial  Valley  and  the  coast 
counties  have  increased  less  rapidly  than  formerly. 

Carlot  Shipments  of  Big  Boston  Lettuce,  Main  Shipping  States,  1917-1925 


«o 

CM 

^ 

O 

t^ 

o 

CO 

t^ 

o 

Fla. 

•H 

lO 

to 

>4^ 

co 

r-i 

•«i< 

lO 

rH 

r-i 

to 

iH 

o> 

CM 

to 

fH 

CM 

lO 

rH 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

to 

to 

CM 

iH 

to 

rj« 

rH 

to 

O 

t>- 

t- 

CO 

Oi 

N.Y. 

CM 

to 

CO 

t- 

'«:1< 

CO 

.H 

CD 

rH 

^ 

to 

l> 

t- 

CJ 

rH 

CO 

CD 

CO 

iH 

iH 

rH 

t-i 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

•H 

«o 

a 

t^ 

in 

CM 

00 

'^ 

t- 

N.C. 

a 

CO 

CM 

«H 

O 

-^ 

CM 

rH 

rH 

to 

o 

iH 

CM 

to 

CM 

'^J^ 

CO 

J> 

!>- 

LO 

fH 

lO 

U> 

rH 

to 

C-- 

t- 

to 

o 

s.c. 

CD 

c- 

c;> 

CM 

rH 

co 

t- 

CM 

o 

iH 

to 

to 

iH 

t> 

a> 

lO 

^ 

t- 

N.J. 

lO 

rH 

lO 

CO 

o> 

rH 

CO 

t- 

o> 

rH 

O 

^ 

o 

CO 

c- 

ir> 

rH 

CO 

CM 

r-i 

CM 

CM 

-^ 

lO 

-^ 

<* 

-^i^ 

Oi 

O 

r-* 

C\J 

to 

'«* 

lO 

rH 

cv: 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

Oi 

Oi 

CD 

cr> 

a> 

o> 

Oi 

rH 

t-i 

rH 

r-i 

iH 

rH 

r-i 

Fig.  8. — The  shipments  of  Big  Boston  lettuce  from  the  main  producing  states, 
with  the  exception  of  New  York,  were  smaller  in  1925  than  in  1922.  The  ship- 
ments from  Florida  in  particular  show  a  pronounced   decline. 

Data  from  table   7. 


16 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


Approximately  90  per  cent  of  the  California  lettuce  shipments  in 
1925  originated  in  the  five  counties  shown  in  figure  11.  Imperial 
County  shipped  nearly  three  times  as  many  cars  of  lettuce  as  Monterey 
County,  the  next  largest  lettuce  shipping  county,  and  almost  as  much 
lettuce  as  was  shipped  by  all  other  counties  combined. 

The  trends  of  shipments  in  these  five  important  lettuce-producing 
counties  are  shown  in  figure  12.  The  three  counties  of  Monterey,  Santa 
Barbara,  and  Santa  Cruz,  located  in  the  coast  district,  show  a  remark- 
able increase  in  lettuce  production.  The  shipments  from  Los  Angeles 
County,  on  the  other  hand,  have  declined  almost  continuously  since 
1921. 

Eelative  Importance  of  Main  Lettuce-Shipping  Districts  in  California,  1925 


Imperial  Valley 
Coast  Couotles 


Cars 


Per  o 

cent  r 

10302   47.7  I 


Interior  Valley 

Counties 
Total 


8217   38.1 


Southern  California   2386   11.0 
Counties 


703    3.2 
21608  100.0 


R 


Fig.  9. — The  Imperial  Valley  is  tlie  largest  lettuce-producing  district  in 

California. 
Data  compiled  from  table   11. 


SEASONAL    MOVEMENT 

Seasonal  Movement  of  Lettuce^  United  States. — Lettuce  is  an  all- 
year  around  product.  Carlot  shipments  of  lettuce  in  considerable 
numbers  reach  the  consuming  markets  every  month  of  the  year.  The 
heaviest  shipments,  how^ever,  occur  during  the  winter  and  early  spring 
months  (fig.  13).  On  an  average,  more  than  one-half  of  the  United 
States'  crop  of  lettuce  is  shipped  during  the  five  months  of  December 
to  April.  March  is  generally  the  month  of  heaviest  shipments  and 
June  the  month  of  lightest  shipments. 

Competition  Between  Iceberg  and  Big  Boston  Shipments. — Active 
shipments  of  both  Big  Boston  and  Iceberg  lettuce  continue  through- 
out the  year  (fig.  14).  With  the  exception  of  the  two  months  of  July 
and  August,  however,  the  bulk  of  the  lettuce  shipments  (from  80  to 
95  per  cent)  are  of  the  Iceberg  type ;  but  during  these  two  months  the 
shipments  of  Big  Boston  lettuce  are  as  large   as  those   of  Iceberg 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


17 


lettuce.  Since  the  heavy  shipping  seasons  of  these  two  types  of 
lettuce  occur  at  different  periods  it  is  possible  for  a  fairly  uniform 
supply  of  lettuce  to  be  placed  on  the  consuming  markets  every  month 
of  the  year  with  the  exception  of  June. 


Carlot  Shipments  of  Lettuce,  California  by  Districts,  1920-1925 


Imperial  Valley- 
Southern  California 
Counties 

Coast  Counties 


Interior  Valley 
Courities 


Fig.  10. — The  Coast  district  is  rapidly  approaching  the  Imperial  Valley  as 
an    important   lettuce-producing   section. 

Data  compiled  from  table  11. 


18 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION   SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


Seasonal  Movement  of  California  Lettuce. — California  is  the  only 
state  that  ships  lettuce  every  month  of  the  year.  The  heavy  ship- 
ments, however,  occur  during  the  fall,  winter  and  spring  months 
(fig.  15).  During  the  past  five  years,  an  average  of  90  per  cent  of 
the  lettuce  has  been  shipped  during  the  eight  months  from  October 
to  May,  and  66  per  cent  during  the  five  months  from  January  to 
May.  Only  10  per  cent  of  the  lettuce,  on  an  average,  has  been  shipped 
during  the  four  months  from  June  to  September.  The  tendency, 
however,  is  to  ship  a  relatively  larger  amount  of  lettuce  during  these 
four  months.  In  1921,  only  8.4  per  cent  was  shipped  during  this 
period,  as  compared  with  12.8  per  cent  in  1925. 


Relative  Importance  of  Main  Lettuce-Shipping  Counties  in  California,  1925 

>-l  CM  (O  •<*'  i5 


Cars 

Per 
cent 

Imperial 

10302 

47.7 

Monterey 

3581 

16.6 

Santa  Barbara 

2552 

11.8 

Loe  Angeles 

1709 

7.3 

Santa  Crux 

1247 

5.8 

Others 
Total 

2217 
21608 

10.8 
100.0 

Fig.  11. — Approximately  90  per  cent  of  California's  lettuce  is  produced  in  5 
counties.  In  1925  Imperial  County  alone  shipped  almost  as  much  lettuce  as  all 
other  counties  combined.  Data  from  table  ii. 

Competition  Between  Iceberg  Lettuce-Producing  Sections. — The 
general  extent  and  periods  of  competition  between  the  different  Ice- 
berg lettuce-producing  sections  are  shown  in  figures  16,  17,  and  18.^ 
With  the  exception  of  the  three  months  of  August,  September,  and 
December,  the  weekly  carlot  shipments  of  lettuce  from  California  are 
larger  than  the  combined  weekly  shipments  from  the  other  Iceberg 
lettuce-producing  states  (fig.  16).  Although  these  other  states  ship 
some  lettuce  every  week  in  the  year,  the  general  tendency  is  for  their 
shipments  to  be  heaviest  at  the  times  when  the  shipments  from  Cali- 
fornia are  lightest,  and  vice  versa.  This  condition  not  only  lessens 
the  severity  of  the  competition  to  California  growers  but,  in  addition, 
makes  possible  a  more  even  distribution  of  Iceberg  lettuce  shipments 
throughout  the  year. 

8  The  minor  fluctuations  in  the  curves  shown  in  these  figures  change  from 
year  to  year  because  of  changes  in  market  conditions  which  influence  shippers  to 
hold  back  or  increase  their  loadings,  and  the  major  fluctuations  may  be  shifted  a 
few  weeks  either  way  depending  upon  the  climatic  conditions  in  the  producing 
sections,  but  the  general  situation  illustrated  here  is  believed  to  be  representative 
of  that  prevailing  at  the  present  time. 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


19 


Carlot  Shipments  of  Lettuce,  Main  Lettuce-Shipping  Counties  in  California, 

1920-1925 


Imperial  ^ 

CVl 


Los  Angeles  o> 

w 
Monterey  « 

Santa  Barbara     *^ 
Santa  Cruz  S 


100 
90 
80 
70 
60 

50 

40 

30 


20 


S 


^ 


10 
9 

.8 
7 

6 


_^ 

__ 

^_             ~ 

y 

y^ 

_^' 

s. 

v^^''^— Im  p«rial 

^^ 

^  \ 

/ 

*?^. 

L.02 

?  Angelos" 

/^' — , 

V^ 

flaivVac  Ba 

Z^y 

/: 

^^•^^^* 

.^^   -^ 

j 

^     / 

1 

/  y 

If 

v^^'^SaLD'tec  Cruz     | 

Mont* 

>rey — >^^ 

/ 

Jf 

A 

/ 

/ 

^ 

CM 

to 

•<)« 

la 

CM 

N 

CM 

o> 

Ol 

o> 

o> 

Fig.  12. — Lettuce  shipments  from  Monterey,  Santa  Barbara,  and  Santa  Cruz 
counties  have  increased  even  faster  than  from  Imperial  County,  while  the  ship- 
ments from  Los  Angeles  County  show  a  pronounced  decline. 

Data  from  table  11. 


20 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


Percentage  of  Total  Carlot  Shipments  of  United  States  Lettuce  Shipped 
BY  Months,  1924;  1925,  and  Average,  1921-1925 


AT.  1921-25 
1924 

1925 


16 
14 
12 
10 
«  8 


/' 

-1925 

>< 

^ 

V 

— 

7\ 



N 

V' 

24. 

y 

y 

-X? 

1 

<\ 

y 

\ 

/ 

Fig.   13. — Lettuce  is   an   all-year   around   product.      Shipments,   however,   are 

heaviest  during  the  winter  and  early  spring  and  lightest  during  June. 

Data   computed  from  table   8 


Carlot  Shipments  of  Iceberg  and  Big  Boston  Lettuce  by  Months,  1925 


Big  Boston 


Iceberg 


M  SSI  I II I  INI 


Per  cent  of      TBig  Boston     17.9 
Monthly  Total  Vlcebor^  82.1 

Fig.  14. — Big  Boston  lettuce  competes  most  severely  with  Iceberg  lettuce  during 

the  three  months  of  July,  August,  and  September. 

Data  from  table  8. 


Feb. 

Uar. 

Apr. 

May 

Juno 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Hot. 

Deo. 

13.3 

14.6 

18.7 

11.3 

,    7.9 

56.4 

47.2 

28.6 

7.5 

11.3 

6.6 

86.7 

85.4 

81.3 

88.7 

92.1 

43.6 

52.8 

71.4 

92.5 

88.7 

95.4 

1926] 


LETTUCE 


21 


The  weekly  carlot  shipments  from  the  principal  Iceberg  lettuce- 
producing  states  other  than  California  are  shown  in  figure  17.  The 
important  fact  illustrated  here  is  that  there  is  very  little  direct  com- 
petition between  these  four  states ;  all  of  them  compete  directly  with 
California  but  not  with  each  other.  Arizona's  first  crop  usually  begins 
to  move  about  the  first  of  December,  just  when  Idaho's  second  crop 

Percentage  of  Total  Carlot  Shipments  of  California  Lettuce  Shipped  by 
Months,  1924,  1925,  and  Average,  1921-1925 

O)  t00>f-lt-00LOOOl0«-l«H 

Av,   1921-25  ^  t<JtDiootcc\iojc>jin  o>  m 

4,  r-l  r^  t^  r-l  t-t 

§CVJ                       csjtO-*U5lO<-^lHlOO<VlO 
*y^*  O  _T  ^*  .«  ^T  >-^  _u  rM  I  t  en  «^  CO 


1925 


/ 

i 

/ 

'J 

\ 

/ 

/ 

X 

\ 

f^. 

7  \ 

r 

-^ 

e    1921 

-  192S 

/ 

-N^. 

19 

">■ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

f 

-vy 

X 

^.    \ 

\ 

19Zi 

V 

// 

\ 

.. 

/a 

f 

^ 

^^^•« 

_^^ 
»^^ 

Y 

*** 

—  • 

s 


W5  CU  +J 

;3  ©  O 

•<  W  O 


%       s 


Fig.  15. — California  is  the  only  state  that  ships  lettuce  every  month  of  the 
year.  Most  of  the  lettuce,  however,  is  shipped  during  the  8  months  from  October 
to  May,  inclusive. 

Data  computed  from  table  9. 


is  about  finished.  Arizona's  second  crop  is  shipped  before  Wash- 
ington becomes  an  important  factor  in  the  market,  and  the  bulk  of 
Washington's  lettuce  is  shipped  before  Colorado's  shipments  become 
heavy.  Idaho's  first  crop,  which  is  relatively  unimportant,  comes  on 
at  the  same  time  as  the  heavy  shipments  from  Washington,  but  the 
second  crop  does  not  begin  to  move  in  any  considerable  volume  until 
the  end  of  Colorado's  season  and  is  finished  before  Arizona's  ship- 
ments become  heavy. 


22 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


CSLPS 


to  *i  n> 

O    CD    _  • 

o      Cars 

261  285 

223  461 

199  410 

164  473 

120  481 

110  575 

72  683 

47  795 

39  610 

64  685 

37  663 

30  968 

23  1364 

33  1020 

68  499 

246  357 

288  558 

114  685 

14  736 


701 
555 


102  204 

118  170 

i  96  141 

117  244 

dl21  287 

101  179 

64  166 

62  124 

98  141 

225  no 

251  136 

238  97 

242  88 

305  110 

460  120 

360  110 

227  83 

253  212 

293  160 

197  397 

82  350 

125  440 

157  415 

1  99  445 

54  406 

48  479 

q  44  360 

- 175  441 

-  393  276 

-  420  314 
^03  307 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


23 


cfq' 


o  "H 


Pj  t^' 


o 


2  o 

3  S2  r 


P 

^    CD 


Cars 


2 

8 

91 

9 

106 

9 

87 

13 

102 

4 

110 

3 

95 

3 

51 

13 

34 

28 

21 

77 

58 

165 

32 

218 

11 

225 

4 

235 

9 

292 

6 

444 
349 
217 

3 

240 

4 

1 

277 

12 

6 

127 

19 

3 

35 

64 

3 

28 

120 

2 

14 

88 

2 

7 

49 

2 

43 

4 

20 

23 

21 

154 

6 

383 
417 
202 

261 

223 

199 

164 

120 

110 

72 

47 

39 

^ 

64 

37 

w 

r 

30 

Ki 

23 

O 

33 

6^ 

o 

246 

r/3 

288 

w 

114 
14 

4 

w 

§ 

24 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


OTQ 


00 

I 

CD 

o       8 

3 

>                M 

8 

1 

Cars 

»       8        % 

p.  Vly.        : 
900 

800 

700 

60O 

1    .?  ? 

Cars 

31       8 
33     20 
19       5 

1  10     15 
13     11 
11     12 

7  16 
17       8 

4       6 

17       4 

9       4 

2  3       1 

4  7 
5 

27     42 

4     138  162 

16     292  251 

22     290  373 

20     306  410 

20  212  469 

1  71  483 
16  189 

8  162 
3  138 

244 

5  282 
179 
166 
124 
141 
110 
136 

97 
88 
110 
120 
110 
83 
212 
160 

2  3  392 
1              349 
4         3  433 
1         1  413 

11       34  400 
38       92  276 
98     150  231 
81     149  130 
55     231  135 

21  142     81 
9       96     51 

33       9 

^10 

ni 

31 

•21 

28 

7 

1=14 

r2i 

28 

4 

^11 

.^18 

25 

2 

1^16 
23 
30 

©20 
27 

h^ 

•<!18 
25 

1 

8 

^5 

?22 

29 

5 
^2 
'^19 
•26 

3 

31 
7 

<21 
28 

5 

ri9 

26 

1 

i 

- 

408 
386 
447 
457 
552 
660 
770 
601 
673 
650 
962 
1353 
1015 
430 
53 

20 

31 

158 

o 

n 
B' 
QTQ 

' 

'^. 

^*^»* 

.^■.■w 

•^ 

> 

^. 

^*^»»  a 

■■*■•• 

1 

"^•si 







■^MB»a 

T 

^^* 

ilifornia 
:  lettuce 
Data  i 

h 

.---• 

5 

^^* 
•^^ 

1  ^ 

::? 

1 

'A 
o 

su     pple 
through 
rom  table 

^ 

^ 

T 

1 

1 

ci 

o 

ment  eac 
Dut  the  } 

10. 

/ 

d 
<* 

9 

i 

^    O 

•    Si 

> 

> 

w 

3 

P 

I    -^ 

) 

< 
o 

5! 

P 
'-^ 

P 

- 

r 

cn 

> 

- 

CO 

to 

o 

3 

-^ 

r 

- 

p 

O 

k: 

> 

- 

S* 

(2 

o 

1926]  LETTUCE  25 

The  competition  between  the  different  lettuce-producing  sections 
in  California  is  shown  in  figure  18.  During  the  first  three  months  of 
the  year  practically  all  of  California's  lettuce  is  produced  in  the 
Imperial  Valley.  The  first  crop  of  lettuce  from  the  Northern,  Central, 
and  Southern  Divisions  comes  on  just  at  the  end  of  the  Imperial 
Valley  season,  and  the  second  crop  from  each  of  these  three  divisions 
is  nearly  finished  before  the  Imperial  Valley  season  begins.  The  first 
crop  in  the  Southern  Division  is  generally  a  little  earlier,  and  the 
second  crop  a  little  later  than  the  first  and  second  crops,  respectively, 
in  the  Central  Division.  Summer  lettuce  in  California  is  produced 
commercially  only  in  the  Central  Division. 


DISTRIBUTION 

Most  of  the  Lettuce  is  Marketed  in  Large  Cities. — Sufficient  data 
are  not  available  to  make  a  thorough  analysis  of  the  distribution  of 
the  United  States  lettuce  shipments,  but  the  data  we  have  give  a 
fairly  comprehensive  idea  of  the  general  situation.  Most  of  the  carlot 
shipments  go  to  cities  having  a  population  of  100,000  or  more.  In 
1925,  67.5  per  cent  of  the  lettuce  shipments  were  unloaded  in  21  cities 
having  a  combined  population  of  20,751,000,  which  is  66  per  cent  of 
the  United  States  population  in  cities  of  100,000  or  more  (table  1). 
During  recent  years  considerable  progress  has  been  made  by  the 
marketing  agencies  in  reaching  the  smaller  markets  throughout  the 
United  States.  The  tendency  is  for  a  smaller  proportion  of  the  lettuce 
to  be  sent  to  the  large  cities.  The  percentage  of  the  total  carlot  ship- 
ments unloaded  in  the  21  cities  listed  in  table  1  in  1925  was  67.5  as 
compared  to  71.3  in  1924.  Just  how  much  additional  progress  can  be 
made  in  developing  the  smaller  markets  not  already  reached  is 
uncertain.  An  important  limiting  factor  is  the  lack  of  agencies  in 
these  undeveloi)ed  markets  that  are  able  to  handle  lettuce  in  carlots. 

Iceberg  Lettuce  More  Widely  Distributed  than  Big  Boston  Lettuce. 
Iceberg  lettuce  is  more  wddely  distributed  than  Big  Boston  lettuce. 
Approximately  92  per  cent  of  the  1925  carlot  shipments  of  lettuce 
from  New  York,  the  main  Big  Boston  lettuce-producing  state,  were 
unloaded  in  11  cities,  and  59  per  cent  were  unloaded  in  New  York 
City  alone.  The  shipments  from  Florida,  the  second  most  important 
Big  Boston  lettuce-producing  states,  likewise  show  a  limited  distribu- 
tion. Twelve  cities  received  78.5  per  cent  of  Florida's  carlot  ship- 
ments in  1925,  and  New  York  City  alone  received  one-half  of  the 
shipments. 


26 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION   SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


The  situation  just  described  is  a  decided  contrast  to  that  existing 
in  the  distribution  of  lettuce  from  most  of  the  western  states.  Only 
62.4  per  cent  of  California's  carlot  shipments  were  unloaded  in  21 
cities,  and  the  two  largest  markets,  New  York  and  Chicago,  received 
only  12  per  cent  and  11  per  cent  of  the  shipments,  respectively. 

TABLE  1 
Carlot  Unloads  of  Lettuce  in  21  Cities,  by  States  of  Origin,  1925 


City 

.a 

< 

6 
'o 
O 

•73 

d 

j3 

CO 

6 

Total 

Atlanta 

25 

60 

102 

403 

122 

69 

69 

44 

103 

5 

35 

400 

44 

158 

119 

6 

88 

13 

2 

2 

25 

169 
206 
624 

2,341 
245 
625 
226 
725 
252 

1,471 
277 

2,G15 
124 

1,155 
612 
352 
566 
162 
147 
411 
187 

49 

40 

42 

535 

102 

97 

220 

172 

115 

7 
21 
19 

5 

2 

5 

361 

5 

43 

1 

99 

24 

1 

63 
14 
73 
17 
10 
7 
32 
13 

256 

65 

44 

6 

2 

2 

1 

8 

68 
11 

6 
18 

5 
16 

191 
155 
113 
43 
12 

18 

7 

667 

Boston 

1 

1  021 

3,900 
547 

Cincinnati 

Cleveland 

1 

865 

Denver 

541 

Detroit 

1 

7 

1,085 
523 

Kansas  City 

Los  Angeles 

1,476 
466 

Minneapolis 

63 
262 

44 
127 

98 

41 
35 

7 
13 
14 

1 

9 
11 

1 

42 
16 
2 

27 

22 

7 

5 

16 

8 
168 

7 
53 
39 

1 
37 

1 

3 

757 

2,248 

439 

544 

7,484 
228 

Philadelphia 

253 

7 

8 

468 
62 

79 

109 

2,450 
974 

Pittsburgh 

Portland,  Ore 

367 

St.  Louis 

139 
9 
1 

21 

1 

89 

954 

St.  Paul 

213 

Salt  Lake  City 

154 

San  Francisco 



413 

Washington 

21 

26 

1 

119 

4 

10 

2 

29 

424 

Total  

1,894 

13,492 

2,136 

1,185 

266 

9 

3,507 

549 

710 

684 

576 

25,008 

Unloads  as  a  percent- 
age  of   total  carlot 
shipments 

54.5 

62.4 

69.8 

78.5 

65.4 

91.8 

83.7 

67  5 

Data  compiled  from  Unloads  of  Lettuce  in  Various  Markets  during  1925  by  States  of  Origin  and 
Months,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  unpublished  report,  April  22,  1926. 


Distribution  of  Imperial  Valley  Lettuce. — A  more  detailed  analysis 
of  the  distribution  of  Imperial  Valley  lettuce  is  possible,  as  the 
primary  destinations  of  the  carlot  shipments  from  this  section  have 
been  compiled  since  the  1922-23  season  by  Mr.  C.  E.  Schultz,  local 
representative  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  at  El  Centre. 
The  outstanding  development  has  been  the  continual  widening  of  the 
markets.  Imperial  Valley  lettuce  was  sent  to  233  markets  during  the 
1925-26  season,  as  compared  to  216  markets  in  1924-25,  205  markets 
in  1923-24,  and  155  markets  in  1922-23.  Many  of  the  smaller  markets 
which  formerly  received  their  supplies  in  less  than  carlots  are  now 
receiving  carlots  direct. 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


27 


i-i    CD 

§^ 

pi 
">& 

P  £^   q; 

3P^ 

So  <^ 

to  B  ?a 

•  ^  2 

as. 

^  tr 

o  fc 
o  o 


5  « 

GO     d 

a 

CO 


28 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


Figure  19  shows  that  the  geographic  distribution  of  Imperial 
Valley  lettuce  shipments  coincides  remarkably  well  with  that  of  the 
population  in  cities  of  100,000  or  more,  when  allowances  are  made  for 
the  distance  to  the  markets  and  the  competition  of  other  sections. 
The  divisions  along  the  eastern  coast  quite  naturally  receive  a  smaller 
percentage  of  the  Imperial  Valley  shipments  as  compared  with  the 
population  than  the  divisions  farther  west,  because  (1)  the  distance  to 
the  markets  in  the  former  divisions  is  greater,  and  (2)  the  competition 
of  Big  Boston  lettuce  supplies  is  more  severe. 

TABLE  2 

Destinations   of   Imperial  Valley   Lettuce   Shipments   Compared   with 
Population  IN  Cities  of  100,000  or  More,  1925 


Destin 

ations 

Estimated  population 

Geographic  division 

Cars* 

Per  cent 

1,000  personst 

Per  cent 

New  England 

273 

2,040 

2,921 

1,017 

311 

204 

533 

234 

1,498 

3  0 
22  6 
32  4 
11  3 
3  4 
2  2 
5.9 
2.6 
16  6 

2.541 
11,654 
7,917 
2.447 
2,108 

749 
1,300 

466 
2,285 

8.1 

Middle  Atlantic  ..  . 

37.0 

East  North  Central 

25.1 

West  North  Central 

7  8 

South  Atlantic 

6.7 

East  South  Central 

2  4 

West  South  Central 

4  1 

Mountain 

1  5 

7.3 

Total 

9,031 

100  0 

31,467 

100.0 

*  Data  compiled  from  Summary  of  Imperial  Valley  Lettuce  Deal,  1924-25,  by  C.  E.  Schultz,  Bureau 
of  Agricultural  Economics. 

t  Population  estimates  based  on  Census  of  1910  and  1920.     14th  Census  of  U.  S.  1,  1920. 


Important  Markets  for  California  Lettuce. — The  location  and  rela- 
tive importance  of  21  important  markets  for  California  lettuce  are 
shown  in  figure  20.^  The  majority  of  these  markets  are  located  in 
the  midwestern  and  eastern  states.  New  York  and  Chicago  are  our 
most  important  markets,  followed  by  Los  Angeles,  Philadelphia,  and 
Detroit. 

Each  of  these  markets  received  more  lettuce  from  California  dur- 
ing the  year  than  from  any  other  state,  and  over  one-half  (54  per  cent) 
of  the  total  carlot  unloads  in  the  21  markets  were  from  California. 
During  certain  months  of  the  year,  however,  other  states  are  a  more 
important  factor  in  some  of  the  markets  than  California.  For 
example,  90  per  cent  of  the  unloads  in  New  York  City  in  August  were 
from  New  York,  as  compared  with  3  per  cent  from  California. 


9  The  amount  of  California  lettuce  marketed  in  Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco 
is  larger  than  that  indicated  by  the  carlot  unloads,  as  a  considerable  volume 
is  shipped  to  these  markets  by  truck. 


1926' 


LETTUCE 


29 


30 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


Because  of  the  location  of  the  producing  sections,  Big  Boston 
lettuce  forms  a  much  more  important  part  of  the  lettuce  supply  in 
the  eastern  cities  than  in  the  midwestern  cities.  Iceberg  lettuce,  how- 
ever, is  becoming  increasingly  important  in  the  eastern  cities.  For 
example,  40  per  cent  of  the  lettuce  receipts  in  New  York  City  in  1925 
were  of  the  Iceberg  type  as  compared  with  18  per  cent  in  1922 
(table  3). 

TABLE  3 

Eeceipts  of  Lettuce  in  New  York  City,  1922-1925 


Total  cars 

Iceberg 

Big  Boston 

Year 

Cars 

Per  cent 

Cars 

Per  cent 

1922 

5,569 
7,008 
8,055 
8,525 

1,004 
1,942 
2,736 
3,372 

18 

27.7 

34 

39.6 

4,565 
5,066 
5,319 
5,153 

82 

1923                                                 .    . 

72  3 

1924 

66 

1925 

60  4 

Data  compiled  from  yearly  summaries  of  receipts  of  fruits  and  vegetables  in  New  York  City  (mimeo- 
graphed), issued  by  the  New  York  ofhce  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 


CONSUMPTION 

There  are  no  accurate  figures  available  on  the  total  consumption  of 
head  lettuce  in  the  United  States.  Carlot  shipments,  as  reported  by 
the  railroads  to  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  are  less  than 
the  total  amount  of  head  lettuce  consumed  as  considerable  quantities 
are  shipped  by  truck.  Production  estimates,  on  the  other  hand,  are 
larger  than  the  actual  consumption  as  much  lettuce  is  frequently  left 
in  the  field.  On  the  whole,  it  is  believed  that  a  more  accurate  com- 
parison of  the  consumption  of  lettuce  between  different  years  is 
obtained  by  using  carlot  shipment  figures  rather  than  production 
estimates. 

Figure  21  shows  the  yearly  per  capita  consumption  of  head  lettuce 
in  the  United  States  from  1917  to  1925.  During  this  period  con- 
sumption increased  from  less  than  one  head  per  person  to  five  heads 
per  person,  an  increase  of  525  per  cent. 

A  fact  of  great  importance  to  the  lettuce  industry  is  that  this  large 
increase  in  consumption  has  taken  place  without  a  corresponding 
decline  in  the  price.  The  average  prices  which  consumers  have  paid 
for  Iceberg  lettuce,  as  indicated  by  the  Chicago  jobbing  prices^^  have 


10  Consumers  of  course  pay  much  more  than  the  jobbing  price,  as  the  retail 
margin  is  approximately  40  per  cent,  but  the  jobbing  price  furnishes  a  fair  com- 
parison one  year  with  another. 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


31 


remained  at  approximately  the  same  level  for  the  past  five  years  (see 
fig.  26).  In  short,  people  are  not  only  eating  almost  twice  as  much 
lettuce  as  they  did  five  years  ago,  but  they  are  paying  as  much  per 
head  for  it  now  as  they  did  then. 

Per  Capita  Consumption  of  Head  Lettuce,  United  States,  1917-1925 


05 
•P 

•H 

Oh 
GE» 
O 

u 

0) 

%a 

© 


c^ 

CO 

en 

o 

t~\ 

CJ 

CO 

>«^ 

LO 

•H 

rH 

•H 

CM 

<M 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

Oi 

a> 

o> 

o> 

OS 

Ol 

€T> 

CJ^ 

CJi 

Fig.  21. — People  are  eating  6  times  as  much  head  lettuce  today  as  they  did 
9  years  ago  and  almost  twice  as  much  as  they  did  5  years  ago. 

Data  obtained  by  converting  carlot  shipments  to  number  of  heads  and  dividing  the  result 
by  the  estimated  population  in  the  United  States. 


Although  the  per  capita  consumption  of  head  lettuce  has  been 
increasing  rapidly,  the  present  consumption  of  five  heads  per  person 
for  the  United  States  as  a  whole  can  not  be  considered  as  high.  The 
chief  cause  for  this  low  consumption  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
man}^  people  do  not  eat  head  lettuce  at  all,  and  many  others  eat  it  only 
occasionally,  mainly  because  they  can  not  purchase  it  readily  through- 
out the  year.  In  those  markets  in  which  lettuce  is  available  most 
of  the  time,  the  per  capita  consumption  is  from  two  to  three  times  that 
for  the  United  States  as  a  whole.  The  average  per  capita  consumption 
in  the  10  markets  given  in  table  4  was  13.2  heads  in  1925,  over  2% 
times  that  for  the  United  States.  Of  these  10  markets,  Boston  had 
the  lowest  per  capita  consumption  and  Chicago  the  highest. 


32 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


TABLE  4 

Estimated  Per  Capita  Consumption  of  Head  Lettuce  in  10  Cities,  1925 


Estimated  population 

metropolitan  area, 

July  1,  1925* 

Lettuce  unloadsf 

Per  capita 
consumption, 

City 

Cars 

1,000  heads 

number  of 
heads 

Baltimore             

858,000 
1,909,000 
3,589,000 

629,000 
1,097,000 
1,534,000 
8,672,000 
2,647,000 
1,306,000 
1,022,000 

667 

1,021 

3,900 

547 

865 

1,085 

7,484 

2,450 

974 

954 

10,245 
15,683 
59,904 
8,402 
13,286 
16,666 
114,954 
37,632 
14,961 
14,653 

11.9 

8.2 

Chicago                     .           .    ... 

16.7 

13.4 

Cleveland 

12.1 

Detroit 

10.9 

New  York 

13.3 

14  2 

Pittsburgh 

11  5 

St.  Louis 

14.3 

Total 

23,263,000 

19,947 

306,386 

13  2 

*  Population  estimates  based  on  Census  of  1910  and  1920,  14th  Census  of  U.  S.,  Vol.  1,  1920.  Metro- 
politan area  includes  city  and  civil  division  within  10  miles  of  city  boundary. 

t  Data  on  carlot  unloads  from  table  1.  Number  of  heads  computed  upon  the  basis  of  320  crates  of 
4  dozen  heads  each  to  a  car. 


Unloads  of  Lettuce  in  Three  Cities  by  Months,  1925 


Nev/  York 


Chicago 


ID 

§ 

to 

CO 

to 

CO 

PhilEJiolphia      rn 


100 


S 


.h'  to 


Fig.  22. — Chicago  receives  a  more  uniform  supply  of  lettuce  throughout  the 
year  than  New  York  or  Philadelphia,  which  accounts  in  part  for  its  higher  per 
capita  consumption. 

Data  from  table  13. 


1926]  LETTUCE  33 

One  of  the  reasons  for  the  relatively  high  consumption  in  Chicago 
is  the  uniformity  of  the  lettuce  supplies  throughout  the  year  (fig.  22). 
In  New  York  and  Philadelphia  where  the  monthly  unloads  show  a 
wide  variation,  the  consumption  is. smaller. 

PRICES    OF    ICEBERG    LETTUCE 

The  most  valuable  source  of  price  information  on  Iceberg  lettuce 
is  the  daily  market  report  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics, 
which  gives  jobbing  prices  in  the  important  markets.  In  compiling 
weekly,  monthly,  and  yearly  average  prices  from  these  reports,  an 
attempt  was  made  to  obtain  prices  on  the  same  quality  and  sizes  of 
lettuce  throughout.  This,  however,  was  not  entirely  possible  because 
(1)  the  descriptions  of  the  various  qualities  vary  from  time  to  time, 
and  (2)  even  where  the  descriptions  remain  the  same  for  different 
periods,  lettuce  described  as  ''best,"  for  example,  may  be  poorer  at 
one  time  than  at  another.  In  interpreting  the  price  series  presented 
in  this  circular,  therefore,  it  should  be  remembered  that  although  the 
prices  are  for  good  quality  lettuce,  considering  the  average  quality 
that  is  being  received  at  the  time,  the  actual  quality  upon  which  the 
prices  are  given  varies  from  time  to  time. 

Chicago  Johhing  Prices  Representative  of  Those  Prevailing  in  the 
Eastern  Markets. — Jobbing  prices  at  Chicago  were  selected  in  making 
up  the  main  price  series  on  Iceberg  lettuce.  Daily  prices  in  this 
market  are  available  over  a  longer  period  of  years  than  in  the  other 
large  markets.  In  addition,  the  average  prices  paid  for  Iceberg  lettuce 
in  Chicago  are  believed  to  be  generally  representative  of  those  pre- 
vailing in  the  eastern  and  midwestern  markets.  It  was  found  that 
the  weekly  average  prices  in  the  large  markets  fluctuate  with  con- 
siderable uniformity.  Of  course,  minor  fluctuations  occur  independ- 
ently in  each  of  the  markets  because  of  purely  local  demand  and 
supply  conditions.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  prices  in  Chicago 
are  influenced  more  by  the  general  conditions  of  demand  and  supply 
and  less  by  the  local  conditions  than  are  the  prices  in  many  of  the 
other  markets.  Chicago  is  not  only  the  largest  market  for  Iceberg 
lettuce,  but  its  geographic  location  makes  it  particularly  easy  to  move 
lettuce  from  the  western  states  into  or  out  of  this  market,  thus  bring- 
ing about  a  rapid  adjustment  of  price  to  the  general  demand  and 
supply  conditions. 

Relation  Between  Chicago  Johhing  Prices  and  Prices  F.O.B.  Cash 
Track,  Imperial  Valley. — California  lettuce  growers  are  intensely 
interested  in  the  price  of  lettuce  on  the  Eastern  markets  because  the 


34 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION   SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


Eastern  price  is  the  main  factor  in  determining  what  they  will  receive 
for  lettuce  at  their  shipping  points/^  The  relationship  which  existed 
between  the  jobbing  prices  of  California  lettuce  at  Chicago  and  prices 
''f.o.b.  cash  track"  Imperial  Valley  in  1925  is  shown  in  figure  23. 

Chicago  Jobbing  Prices  on  Good  Quality  California  Lettuce  Compared  with 
Prices  F.O.B.  Cash  Track  Imperial  Valley,  1925 


Chicago                   £  1 

O 

• 

o 

ir> 

• 

-4< 

o 

CO 

• 

«4< 

• 

S  o 
Imperial  Valley  ^  ^. 

in 

• 

lO 

o 

• 
to 

10 
to 

o 
o 

to 

Ifi 

o 

o 

o 

8 

o 

o 

C\i 

CO 

U5 

CO 

to 

CO 

• 

• 

rji 

-* 

•^ 

to 

CO 

CM 

CNJ 

o 

ir> 

lO 

lO 

o 

IT) 

O 

<M 

Oi 

CO 

to 

"^f 

CV2 

to 

5,00 
4.50 
4.00 
3.50 


®     3.00 

u 
o 


2.50 


u 
o 

g     2.00 
3 

r-l 

o     1,50 
.1.00 


.50 


/ 

^v 

^^ 

> 

.^' 

— 

,«^" 

\ 

/ 

(lag 

Chi< 

TS 

eck) 

\ 

v 

.-— 

\ 

/ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

^^^ 

/ 

> 

N 

^ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

. 

?.O.B 

.  Im 

actHi 

x1  Vi 

atUej 

■ — -^ 

A 

^ 

' — 

— 

Jan, 


Feb, 


Mar, 


Apr, 


Fig.  23. — The  price  that  country  buyers  expect  to  receive  for  lettuce  on  the 
Eastern  markets  is  the  main  factor  in  determining  the  cash  price  at  the  growers' 
shipping  points. 

Data  compiled  from  the  daily  market  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 
issued  from  the  El  Centro  office.     Weekly  prices  are   simple   average   of   daily  prices. 


The  Chicago  prices  are  lagged  one  week,  as  it  takes  approximately 
that  length  of  time  for  lettuce  to  be  shipped  from  the  Imperial  Valley 
to  Chicago.    It  is  apparent  that  there  is  a  close  relationship  between 


11  It  has  been  estimated  that  at  the  present  time  fully  three-fourths  of  the 
lettuce  in  California  is  sold  f.o.b.  growers'  shipping  points,  either  for  ''cash 
on  track,"  or  "usual  terms."  The  balance  is  sold  in  a  number  of  different 
ways:  sometimes  the  field  is  sold  for  a  designated  sum  before  harvesting,  or 
on  the  basis  of  packed-out  crates.  Some  lettuce  is  consigned  direct  to  com- 
mission merchants,  and  some  is  sold  on  the  delivered  basis. 


1926]  LETTUCE  35 

the  cash  prices  that  growers  received  for  lettuce  and  the  prices  for 
which  the  lettuce  sold  in  Chicago.  The  price  which  country  buyers 
are  willing  to  pay  for  lettuce  is  determined  by  what  they  believe  the 
lettuce  will  bring  in  the  consuming  markets.  In  other  words,  buyers 
of  lettuce  at  the  shipping  points,  if  they  are  successful,  must  be  able 
to  forecast  with  a  considerable  degree  of  accuracy  the  prices  which 
will  prevail  in  the  consuming  markets  at  the  time  the  lettuce  reaches 
those  markets.  The  absence  of  a  more  perfect  relationship  between 
these  two  price  series  is  caused  by  several  factors.  Unexpected 
changes  in  the  demand  or  supply  situation  may  cause  prices  in  the 
consuming  markets  to  change  more  than  the  buyers  anticipated.  The 
Chicago  market,  while  probably  more  representative  than  any  other 
single  eastern  or  midwestern  market,  may  not  be  at  all  times  repre- 
sentative of  all  the  large  consuming  markets. 

The  average  differential  between  the  Chicago  jobbing  prices  and 
prices  f.o.b.  cash  track  Imperial  Valley  during  1925  was  $1.65  per 
crate.  The  cost  of  transportation,  which  amounted  to  $1.27  per  crate, 
was  responsible  for  the  greater  part  of  this  differential.  The  remain- 
ing 38  cents,  which  is  approximately  10  per  cent  of  the  jobbing  price, 
was  received  by  buyers  for  their  services  in  selling  a  crate  of  lettuce 
to  jobbers.  To  obtain  the  net  price  to  growers  a  further  deduction 
must  be  made,  viz.,  the  cost  of  packing  which  in  1925  averaged  about 
75  cents  per  crate.  Thus  we  find  that  after  deducting  the  necessary 
charges  growers  in  the  Imperial  Valley  received  an  average  of  $1.55 
per  packed  crate  for  good  quality  lettuce  in  1925,  while  the  Chicago 
jobbing  prices  averaged  $3.95  per  crate. ^^ 

Price  Characteristics. — A  number  of  the  more  important  character- 
istics of  lettuce  prices  require  a  somewhat  detailed  explanation  because 
of  their  influence  upon  the  profitableness  of  growing  lettuce. 

1.  Jobbing  prices  of  lettuce  fluctuate  widely  from  day  to  day  and 
from  week  to  week.  In  figure  24  it  will  be  noted  that  the  weekly 
average  jobbing  prices  of  California  lettuce  at  Chicago  fall  rapidly 
and  recover  rapidly,  and  that  the  high  prices  are  frequently  twice  as 
much  as  the  low  prices.  Because  of  these  wide  price  fluctuations  the 
risk  of  growing  lettuce  is  great.     The  growers  who  are  fortunate 


12  Eeaders  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  prices  which  are  given  in  the  following 
pages  are  jobbing  prices  at  Chicago  and  that  substantial  deduction  must  be  made 
from  these  prices  in  order  to  obtain  net  prices  to  growers.  Considerable  effort  was 
made  to  obtain  prices  of  California  lettuce  f.o.b.  cash  track  or  f.o.b.  usual  terms. 
It  was  impossible,  however,  to  obtain  a  complete  series  that  was  comparable  one 
period  with  another  and  representative  for  the  state  over  a  sufficiently  long  period. 


36  CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION   SERVICE  [CiRC.  5 

enough  to  have  the  bulk  of  their  lettuce  reach  the  market  when  the 
prices  are  high  make  large  profits,  but  on  the  other  hand,  if  prices 
are  low  when  their  lettuce  reaches  the  market,  heavy  losses  are 
suffered.  Very  few  small  growers  are  financially  able  to  take  the  risk 
of  having  the  bulk  of  their  lettuce  fall  on  a  low  market.  Consequently, 
they  should  spread  the  planting  of  it  over  a  sufficiently  long  period  so 
that  it  will  mature  at  different  times,  and  thus  enable  them  to  obtain 
the  average  of  the  high  and  low  prices  for  the  season.  By  having 
some  lettuce  mature  each  day  or  week  throughout  the  season,  growers 
can  insure  themselves  against  the  risk  of  having  the  bulk  of  their 
lettuce  sell  at  the  lowest  price.  Even  the  large  growers  who  are 
financially  strong  find  it  advisable  to  extend  their  marketing  period 
over  as  long  a  time  as  possible  in  order  to  obtain  the  average  price 
for  the  year,  rather  than  take  the  chance  of  suffering  large  losses. 
In  addition  to  having  their  lettuce  in  a  particular  section  come  on 
gradually,  many  of  the  large  growers,  by  operating  in  all  of  the 
main  lettuce-producing  sections  in  California,  are  able  to  market 
lettuce  throughout  the  year.  In  this  way,  losses  suffered  during  some 
periods  are  offset  by  high  profits  obtained  during  other  periods.  The 
chief  reason  for  the  increasing  importance  of  the  large  growers  in  the 
lettuce  industry  in  California  is  their  abilit}^  to  take  the  risk  involved, 
due  to  their  financial  strength  and  their  practice  of  operating  in  such 
a  way  as  to  be  able  to  market  lettuce  throughout  the  year.^^ 

2.  There  is  no  simple  definite  prevailing  relationship  between  the 
supply  of  lettuce  and  the  price  at  which  it  will  sell.  In  the  absence 
of  a  careful  analysis,  one  might  assume  that  the  jobbing  prices  of 
lettuce  in  each  market  would  fall  as  supplies  increase  and  recover  as 
supplies  diminish,  "but  a  study  of  the  weekly  average  prices  to 
jobbers  and  total  carlot  unloads  of  lettuce  by  weeks  in  several  of  the 
important  markets  reveals  the  fact  that  the  correlation  between  the 
two  over  a  period  of  one  year  is  so  small  as  to  be  almost  wholly 
insignificant."^^  Previous  to  receiving  the  bulletin  just  quoted,  the 
author  made  a  study  to  determine  what  relationship  existed  between 
(1)  the  weekly  average  jobbing  price  and  total  cars  on  track  by 
weeks  in  Chicago,  (2)  the  weekly  average  jobbing  i3rice  and  total 
carlot  arrivals  by  weeks  in  New  York,  (3)  the  weekly  average  price 
f .o.b.  cash  track  and  total  weekly  shipments  from  the  Imperial  Valley. 


13  At  the  present  time  close  to  80  per  cent  of  the  lettuce  in  California  is 
grown  by  the  large  operators. 

i4Hauck,    Charles   W.,    Marketing   lettuce.      U.    S.    Dept.    Agr.    Bui.    1412:31, 
1926. 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


37 


Dollars  Per  Crate 
ro  oj  rf*  en 


^PL    ^' 


a  ^  to 

13        I 

_  ►i  Co 

S.^  CD 

2  ^ 

«  rD 

^'^  o 


S9    F^ 


CB 


O 

3^ 


gs  •-< 


o  H 


o 

O     03* 

(C    CO 

CO  p3 

TO  t? 

as 


2  S"      o 


M 


g-g  2.        ^~ 


o 

1 


o            S 

I     i 

>             c 

I      I 

I     i 

)             c 
)              c 

I       8 

• 

)5 

f 

- 

o 

•    - 

J 

X 

- 

I- 

•    ■ 

< 

1 

-•4 

i 

- 

•    _ 

<{ 

<. 

} 

.J 

- 

C  - 

5  _ 

^z 

^ 

f 

^ 

- 

c 
• 

r 

to 
w 

^5) 

--J. 

•?! 

^ 

'^7 

- 

c 

^ 

>*'> 

^^^* 

•s    - 

J     - 

C/  — 

o 

•  — 

I 

^ 

> 

1 

': 

*    _ 

^ 

^ 

~ 

1 

.i 

4 

/ 

- 

0) 

o  — 

• 

i 
< 

1 

> 

\ 

CO           <o 

to 
^5 

o>         en 

It*. 

>           Dollars 

4.25  3.50 

2.30 

4.00  3.46 

2.45 

3.40  3.60 

2.40 

2.75  4.10 

2.60 

3.00  4.40 

2.50 

2.80  4.50 

2.69 

w 
W 

2.80  4.80 

2.85 

3.25  4.45 

2,85 

«H 

3.75  4.00 

2.80 

O 

3.75  4.25 

2.50 

w 

3.60  4.30 

2.95 

4,00  4. 50 

4.15 

^ 

4.75  3.80 

4.95 

w 

6.00  3.00 

5.15 

H 

4.25  2.60 

5.65 

o 

4.60  2.80 

5,55 

^ 

4.90  2.90 

5.20 

O 
o 

4.75  3,30 

5.65 

o 

4.50  3,30 

4.00 

,o 

4.60  3,55 

3.40 

4.50  3,65 

3.00 

e: 

4,00  3,35 

3.50 

1^ 

4,00  3,45 

4.16 

n 

3.60  3,35 

3.95 

> 

1,75  3,50 

3.36 

•^ 

1,25  5,70 

2.70 

w 

2,50  4,00 

2.60 

^ 

3.80  3.70 

4.60 

4.40  3.50 

5.80 

4.40  4.65 

5.60 

c 
o 

4.00  5.40 

5.50 

4.50 

6.35 

3.00 

6.25 

2.50 

5.00 

o 

2,60 

4.70 

> 

2,90 

5.46 

2.40 

6.00 

1— ' 

CO 

2.20 

5.25 

to 

2.25 

6.15 

1 

3.05 

5.55 

3.90 

5.66 

Kj 

3.35 

6.40 

^ 

3.80 

6.40 

CO 

to 

3.70 

5.00 

Oi 

3.76 

4.60 

3.80 

3.66 

4.45 

2.96 

4.75 

3.00 

5.25 

2.86 

4.85 

3.06 

4.65 

3.06 

4.60 

3.20 

38  CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION    SERVICE  [CiRC.  5 

The  results  in  each  case  were  the  same,  viz.,  almost  no  significant 
relationship  existed  between  the  two  series.  In  the  Chicago  market, 
for  example,  jobbing  prices  would  sometimes  fall  as  supplies  increased, 
and  conversely,  prices  would  sometimes  rise  as  supplies  decreased, 
but  at  other  times  prices  and  supplies  would  move  in  the  same  direc- 
tion, and  at  still  other  times  either  prices  or  supplies  would  change 
while  the  other  remained  stationary.  Quoting  again  from  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.  Bui.  1412,  "Manifestly  prices  are  determined  by  other  influences 
as  well  as  current  carlot  receipts.  Doubtless  general  business  condi- 
tions, weather,  production,  current  loadings,  shipments  en  route,  busi- 
ness interruptions,  and  deviations  from  the  normal  demand  caused 
by  holidays,  marked  differences  in  the  quality  and  condition  of  offer- 
ings, receipts  of  locally  grown  lettuce,  etc.,  all  exert  some  influence  on 
jobbing  prices."  The  influence  of  quality  upon  price  deserves  par- 
ticular emphasis.  Sales  managers  of  large  lettuce  producing  and 
shipping  organizations  point  out  that  uniformly  poor  quality  lettuce 
will  ruin  a  market  faster  than  anything  else,  even  though  supplies  are 
very  light  and  all  other  conditions  favorable  to  heavy  consumption. 
Although  it  takes  a  little  while  for  this  factor  to  be  felt,  it  is  very 
consistent  and  exerts  a  strong  influence.  On  the  other  hand,  when 
quality  is  uniformly  good,  prices  usually  hold  up  well  despite  heavy 
receipts  and  other  unfavorable  conditions. 

There  is  as  yet  no  method  available  by  which  California  lettuce 
growers  can  forecast  the  prices  that  will  prevail  in  the  Eastern 
markets  sufficiently  far  in  advance  to  enable  them  to  have  their  lettuce 
ready  for  market  at  just  the  time  that  prices  are  high. 

3.  Buyers  pay  a  substantial  premium  for  good  quality  lettuce.  In 
1925  the  average  differential  between  the  jobbing  prices  of  good  and 
poor  quality  lettuce  at  Chicago  was  $2.00  per  crate.  It  is  true,  of 
course,  that  poor  quality  lettuce  frequently  brings  more  when  prices 
are  very  high  than  good  quality  lettuce  does  when  prices  are  very  low, 
but  as  yet  growers  can  not  forecast  three  or  four  months  in  advance 
the  times  during  the  year  when  the  prices  will  be  high.  Consequently 
it  will  generally  pay  them  to  grow  lettuce  at  only  those  times  when 
good  quality  lettuce  can  be  produced. 

4.  There  is  no  definite  seasonal  variation  in  the  prices  of  Iceberg 
lettuce  that  tends  to  be  repeated  year  after  year  (fig.  25).  It  is  true, 
of  course,  that  during  a  given  year  prices  fluctuate  considerably,  being 
high  at  some  periods  and  low  at  others,  but  these  high  and  low  prices 
have  not  been  repeated  at  the  same  periods  year  after  year.  The 
available  data  do  not  indicate  that  there  is  any  one  period  during 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


39 


the  year  when  prices  are  normally  higher  than  at  any  other  period. 
The  average  prices  for  the  different  months  show  only  a  small  varia- 
tion from  each  other,  and  the  cluster  of  the  individual  monthly  prices 
about  the  average  is  not  close.  Growers  who  have  consistently 
marketed  their  lettuce  during  the  same  period  each  year  for  the  past 
six  years  have  received  approximately  the  same  amount  of  money  as 
they  would  have  received  if  they  had  marketed  an  equal  amount  of 
lettuce  of  similar  quality  during  any  other  period. 


Monthly  Jobbing  Prices  of  Good  Quality  Iceberg  Lettuce,  Chicago, 
1923-1925,  AND  Average  1920-1925 


Av.    1920-1925.     "^  ^.  "^  '^. 

w  to  to  ■>*< 

m  o  o  lo 

1923  _  o>  o>  CO  CO 


1924 


1925 


O       . 


6.00 


5.00 


4,00    -^ 


S  3.00 


1,00 


0                  •»! 

h              -"i 

cv 

'         f 

5                        T} 

•^ 

*                 X 

*                     0 

J         f 

3                    T 

f            ■«i' 

1924. ^ 

\ 

/ 



^ 

.,/ 



./ 

^ 

— 

/ 

> 

^ 

/••' 
^ 

'J 

\ 

^ 

// 

^ 

fe 

^ 

.-^ 

1923 

\-T^ 

"       A, 

19 

BO  -lO 

es^ 

\ 

A. 

>2S 

Fig.  25. — There  is  no  period  during  the  year  when  lettuce  prices  are  normally 
higher  than  at  any  other  period. 
Data  from  table  14. 


The  foregoing  analysis  of  the  more  important  characteristics  of 
lettuce  prices  indicates  that  it  generally  pays  to  grow  lettuce  in  a 
given  section  only  at  those  times  when  good  quality  lettuce  can  be 
produced,  and  to  grow  it  over  as  long  a  period  as  possible  consistent 
with  the  production  of  good  quality.  An  effort  to  have  lettuce  mature 
at  just  the  time  when  prices  are  high  is  usually  fruitless  because  (1) 
the  prices  of  lettuce  can  not  be  forecast  with  any  reasonable  degree 


40 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


of  accuracy  sufficiently  far  in  advance,  and  (2)  prices  over  a  period 
of  years  have  been  equally  as  good  at  one  time  of  the  year  as  at  any 
other  time. 

Trend  of  Prices. — Figure  26  shows  the  yearly  average  jobbing 
prices  obtained  for  good  quality  California  lettuce  at  Chicago  during 
the  past  six  years/^  There  has  been  no  apparent  upward  or  downward 
trend  in  prices  during  this  period;  instead  they  have  remained  at 
approximately  the  same  level,  fluctuating  but  slightly  from  year  to 
year.  The  highest  average  price  occurred  in  1922,  but  this  price  of 
$4.06  per  crate  is  only  70  cents  more  than  the  low  price  of  $3.36  in 
1920,  and  only  34  cents  more  than  the  six  years  average  price  of  $3.72. 
The  1925  price  was  $3.88,  16  cents  more  than  the  six-year  average 
price. 

Average  Jobbing  Price  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Good  Quality  California 
Lettuce  at  Chicago,  1920-1925 


Price 


to 

a     • 
u  « 


Purchasing     o  >«jj 
Power  M 

4.60 


§ 

■* 

CO 

n 
to 

• 
lO 

8. 

s 

(0 

•-• 

5 

§ 

Fig.  26. — There  appears  to  have  been  no  tendency  for  prices  to  decline  during 
this  period  despite  the  rapid  increase  in  production. 
Yearly  average  price  computed  by  weighing  the  monthly  jobbing  prices  at  Chicago 
(table  14)  Vjy  the  monthly  carlot  shipments  from  California  (table  9).  Purchasing  power 
obtained  by  deflating  the  yearly  average  price  by  the  "all  commodity  index."  This  index 
is  published  in  The  Agricultural  Situation  which  is  issued  monthly  by  the  Bureau  of 
Agricultural  Economics. 

15  The  general  trend  shown  in  figure  26  is  representative  of  the  trend  of 
average  net  prices  to  growers.  The  actual  prices  received  by  growers,  however, 
are  substantially  less  than  the  Chicago  jobbing  prices  because  of  the  costs  of 
selling,  transporting  and  packing.     See  footnote  at  bottom  of  p.  35. 


1926]  LETTUCE  41 

The  continuation  of  these  relatively  high  prices  of  Iceberg  lettuce 
during  this  period,  when  the  prices  of  many  agricultural  products 
have  been  low,  has  been,  in  the  main,  responsible  for  the  rapid  increase 
in  production. 

The  purchasing  power  of  Iceberg  lettuce  has  also  continued  high. 
The  lettuce  grower  is  able  to  buy  as  much  of  other  commodities  with 
the  money  he  receives  for  a  crate  of  lettuce  today  as  he  was  5  years 
ago  (fig.  26). 

The  experience  of  individual  growers  has  undoubtedly  been  some- 
what different  from  that  illustrated  in  figure  26.  Their  average  prices 
would  coincide  with  those  given  here  only  if  their  shipments  con- 
tinued throughout  the  year  and  in  the  same  proportion  each  month 
as  was  shipped  from  the  state  as  a  whole.  Many  growers,  however, 
ship  lettuce  only  during  a  short  period  each  season.  If,  for  example, 
a  grower  had  marketed  his  lettuce  during  March  each  year  for  the 
past  six  years,  he  would  have  received  a  higher  price  than  the  average 
for  the  state  in  1921,  1922,  and  1925,  but  a  lower  price  in  1920,  1923, 
and  1924.  His  average  price  for  the  six  years,  however,  would  have 
been  approximately  the  same  as  that  for  the  state. 

On  the  whole,  growers  who  have  produced  good  quality  lettuce 
during  any  given  period  each  year  for  the  past  six  years  have  averaged 
satisfactory  prices.  This  would  indicate  that  lettuce  growing  is  likely 
to  prove  more  profitable  to  those  growers  who  undertake  it  as  a  long 
time  proposition  than  to  those  who  '^jump  into  it  one  year  and  out 
the  next." 


42 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


TABLES17 

TABLE  5 
Commercial  Acreage  of  Head  Lettuce,  United  States,  1918-1925 


State 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925* 

Arizona 

300 
7,140 

270 
7,670 

520 
17,880 

630 
15,340 

1,480 
18,140 

2,900 
24,700 

4,800 
33,020 

4,400 

California 

49,320 

Imperial  Valley 

7,000 
8,340 

11,000 
7,140 

14,130 
10,570 

18,000 
15,020 

25,000 

Other  sections         

24,320 

Colorado : 

140 
2,640 

190 
2,680 

730 
3,500 
80 
260 
100 
980 

900 
3,060 
400 
360 
100 
1,070 

6,000 
3,140 
1.800 
370 
170 
1,380 

6,710 
3,780 
3,150 
380 
240 
1,310 

5,600 

3,490 

1,420 

210 

180 

2,300 

250 

6,290 

1,540 

300 

70 

1,120 

760 

300 

1,400 

200 

300 

10,500 

3,400 

1,500 

80 

Florida 

Idaho 

Michigan 

260 

280 

60 

840 

Minnesota 

220 

New  Jersey 

760 

2,320 
1,500 
6,520 
1,730 
300 

New  Mexico 

New  York 

3,480 
490 

4,220 
540 

4,690 
500 

5,120 
760 

6,000 
1,180 

500 

60 

1,750 

1,390 

120 
1,080 

210 

130 

7,150 
1,230 

500 

60 

1,980 

1,140 

200 
2,000 

250 

310 

North  Carolina         

Oregon 

Pennsylvania                             

.50 
660 
590 

50 
780 
560 

60 

740 

1,160 

60 
1,340 
1,020 

70 

South  Carolina 

1,480 
680 

Texas 

Utah 

250 

Washington    ...                   

190 

220 

730 

1,080 

1,720 
110 

Virginia                   

170 

220 

80 

220 

300 

Total 

16,870 

18,580 

32,010 

31,460 

44,900 

57,990 

63,550 

86,400 

*  1925  data  are  preliminary. 

Sources  of  data:    Mimeographed  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  (revised  esti- 
mates).   Years  1923-1925  published  in  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1925,  906. 


17  Tables  1,  2,  3,  and  4  are  on  pages  26,  28,  30,  and  32,  respectively. 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


43 


TABLE  6 
Commercial  Production  of  Head  Lettuce,  United  States,  1918-1925 

(Thousands  of  crates;*  i.e.,  000  omitted) 


State 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925t 

Arizona 

70 
1,864 

63 
1,910 

133 
4,613 

155 

3,649 

422 
3,178 

754 
5,584 

1,080 
6,589 

990 

9,305 

Imperial  Valley 

1,330 
2,319 

1,650 
1,528 

2,614 
2,970 

3,330 
3,259 

5,000 

Other  sections  .         

4,305 

Colorado 

36 
1,093 

45 

938 

182 

1,232 

18 

28 

13 

153 

243 

1,255 

100 

54 

13 

174 

1,080 

1,294 

306 

46 

23 

230 

973 
1,021 

435 
46 
24 

210 

476 
914 
192 

26 

25 
610 

56 

1,113 

260 

48 

5 

151 

133 

80 

36 
315 

52 

1,396 

Florida 

765 

Idaho 

180 

33 

50 

11 

133 

10 

Minnesota    .   .                     

33 

129 

596 

New  Mexico                                .    .. 

300 

New  York 

588 
108 

633 
125 

807 
116 

983 
175 

900 

266 

75 

10 

296 

257 

31 

24 

351 

48 

1,158 
240 

69 

9 

216 

226 

50 

41 
560 

56 

1,265 

North  Carolina 

467 

45 

7 
146 
90 

7 
172 
136 

8 

148 
282 

12 
302 

228 

11 

South  Carolina 

247 

Texas 

68 

Utah 

94 

32 

48 

41 
52 

16 

179 

51 
405 

39 

Washington     

344 

Wyoming 

16 

Total 

4,244 

4,316 

7,928 

7,799 

8,837 

11,672 

12,161 

16,171 

*  Western  crates  of  4  dozen  heads  each. 
t  1925  data  are  preliminary. 

Sources  of  data:     Mimeographed  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  (revised  esti- 
mates).   Years  1923-1925  published  in  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1925,  906. 


44 


CALIFORNIA    AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


TABLE  7 
Carlot  Shipments*  of  Head  Lettuce  by  State  of  Origin,  1917-1925 


State 

1917t 

1918t 

1919t 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925t 

64 
2,013 

1,116 

64 

2,051 

1 

2,352 

41 
2,731 

7 
2,134 

254 
7,358 

129 
2,940 

168 
9,850 

234 
2,267 

678 

9,744 

812 

3,310 

5 

889 

14 

81 

85 

1,108 

15,113 

1,436 

3,146 

5 

1,241 

3 

208 

53 

2,049 

18,480 

1,036 

2,257 

3 

532 

8 

55 

36 

3,477 

California 

21,608 

3,061 

Florida  . 

1,510 
26 

Georgia 

Idaho 

1 
36 
63 
45 
18 

25 

7 

110 

56 

180 

1 

100 

44 

407 

Louisiana 

98 

152 
24 

6 

7 

Minnesota  .. .. 

12 

Missouri 

23 

38 

14 

Montana 

1 

Nevada 

13 

New  Jersey 

215 

171 

245 

208 

469 

571 

456 

11 

3,817 

718 
44 

168 
22 

577 

417 

95 

3,698 

714 
94 

127 
17 

423 

469 

New  Mexico    ..  . 

158 

New  York 

1,423 
181 

1,334 

226 

4 

1,761 

319 

52 

1,775 

207 

16 

3 

23 
121 

3,240 

445 

27 

25 

36 

716 

3 

132 

5 

154 

635 

3,167 
622 

33 
129 

34 

987 

3 

113 

15 
119 
812 

3,819 

North  Carolina 

537 

Ohio 

70 

Oregon 

45 

Pennsylvania 

27 

161 

3 

53 

26 

375 

5 

17 

8 
395 

18 

South  Carohna 

700 

Tennessee 

5 

Texas 

90 

139 

102 

31 

70 

1,081 

85 

7 

110 

674 

121 

Utah 

8 

Virginia 

45 

103 

31 

19 

55 
354 

102 

Washington 

817 

Wisconsin 

4 

Wyoming 

11 
5 

74 
1 

16 
2 

26 

Others 

5 

16 

22 

8 

7 

Total 

5,428 

6,959 

8.018 

13,788 

18,738 

22,240 

29,485 

30,935 

37,040 

*  Local  truck  deliveries  and  less-than-carlot  shipments  by  freight  or  express  are  not  included,  because 
these  records  are  not  available.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  in  some  sections  such  ship- 
ments amount  to  a  considerable  volume. 

t  Records  prior  to  1920  are  only  approximately  accurate. 

1 1925  data  are  preliminary. 

Sources  of  data:  Mimeographed  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  (revised  figures). 
Data  for  the  10  most  important  lettuce-producing  states  for  the  years  1920-1925  published  in  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.  Yearbook  1925,  907. 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


45 


TABLE  8 
Monthly  Carlot  Shipments  of  Head  Lettuce,  United  States,  1917-1925 


Jan. 


Iceberg: 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925* 

Big  Boston: 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925* 

Total  :t 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925* 


165 

271 

134 

793 

1,445 

1,342 

2,193 

2,997 

2,716 

199 
686 
633 
1,161 
875 
903 
926 
810 
593 

364 
957 
767 
1,954 
2,320 
2,245 
3,119 
3,807 
3,309 


Feb. 


159 

497 

311 

1,264 

1,404 

914 

2,111 

3,328 

2,931 

53 
627 
406 
427 
556 
1,005 
625 
297 
448 

212 
1,124 

717 
1,691 
1,960 
1,919 
2,736 
3,625 
3,379 


Mar. 


290 
715 
571 
1,586 
1,409 
1,506 
3,340 
2,505 
4,255 

54 
452 
258 
292 
868 
1,078 
759 
284 
730 

344 
1,167 

829 
1,878 
2,277 
2,584 
4,099 
2,789 
4,985 


Apr. 


472 
162 
557 

793 
1,429 
2,303 
1,905 
2,665 
3,228 

233 
563 
533 
168 
752 
864 
615 
222 
743 

705 
725 
1,090 
961 
2,181 
3,167 
2,520 
2,887 
3,971 


May 


439 

194 

491 

911 

906 

1,429 

1,452 

2,027 

2,578 

235 
305 
340 
239 
158 
430 
563 
1,063 
329 

674 
499 
831 
1,150 
1,064 
1,859 
2,015 
3,090 
2,907 


June 


40 

43 

82 

203 

384 

571 

1,240 

1,180 

1,405 

105 

49 
99 
52 
285 
230 
70 
80 
121 

145 

92 

181 

255 

669 

801 

1,310 

1,260 

1,526 


July 


2 
2 

37 
179 
377 
459 
748 
630 
1,090 

520 

380 

358 

717 

958 

1,077 

1,484 

1,080 

1,408 

522 

382 

395 

896 

1,335 

1,536 

2,232 

1,710 

2,498 


Aug. 


1 

9 
11 

161 
382 
727 

1,087 
609 

1,712 

435 

551 

684 

593 

699 

1,060 

1,406 

1,424 

1,528 

436 

560 

695 

754 

1,081 

1,787 

2,493 

2,033 

3,240 


Sept. 


14 

14 

18 

213 

422 

608 

1,105 

889 

2,087 

308 
369 
635 
507 
861 
695 
734 
937 


322 

383 

653 

720 

1,283 

1,303 

1,839 

1,826 

2,925 


Oct. 


75 

12 

97 

247 

600 

1,003 

1,530 

1,622 

2,526 

198 
111 
261 
221 
669 
500 
518 
546 
206 

273 

123 

358 

468 

1,269 

1,503 

2,048 

2,168 

2,732 


Nov. 


185 
50 

249 
1,042 
1,104 

966 
1,632 
2,397 
2,009 

281 
269 
316 
389 
411 
487 
653 
423 
257 


319 
565 
1,431 
1,515 
1,453 
2,285 
2,820 
2,266 


Dec. 


236 

147 

241 

731 

1,235 

1,263 

1,920 

2,167 

3,083 

729 
481 


549 
820 
869 
753 
219 

965 
628 
937 
1,630 
1,784 
2,083 
2,789 
2,920 
3,302 


Total 


2,078 
2,116 

2,799 
8,123 
11,097 
13,091 
20,263 
23,016 
29,620 

3,350 
4,843 
5,219 
5,665 
7,641 
9,149 
9,222 
7,919 
7,420 

5,428 
6,959 
8,018 
13,788 
18,738 
22,240 
29,485 
30,935 
37,040 


*  1925  data  are  preliminary. 

t  Total  of  Iceberg  and  Big  Boston.    These  two  types  constitute  practically  all  of  the  head  lettuce. 
Sources  of  data:    Compiled  from  mimeographed  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 
(revised  figures). 


TABLE  9 

Monthly  Carlot  Shipments  of  Lettuce,  California,  1917-1925 


Year 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

1917 

165 

263 

132 

767 

1,436 

1,312 

1,953 

2,256 

1,924 

159 

471 

295 

1,175 

1,386 

902 

2,043 

3,185 

2,663 

289 
685 
551 
1,473 
1,397 
1,456 
3,227 
2,461 
4,093 

411 

162 

555 

774 

1,367 

2,014 

1,659 

2,291 

2,502 

437 

194 

491 

911 

899 

1,294 

1,410 

1,952 

2,417 

40 
43 
69 
146 
281 
391 
430 
839 
934 

2 

2 

25 

68 

233 

184 

395 

380 

640 

14 
14 
17 

44 
131 

91 
296 
280 
684 

75 

12 

96 

192 

393 

220 

450 

1,094 

1,831 

185 
50 

249 
1,031 
1,007 

676 
1,241 
2,065 
1,826 

236 

147 

240 

723 

1,173 

1,100 

1,502 

1,474 

1,589 

2,013 

1918 

8 
11 

54 
147 
104 
507 
203 
505 

2,051 

1919 

2,731 

1920 

7,358 

1921 

9,850 

1922 

9,744 

1923 

15,113 

1924 

18,480 

1925* 

21,608 

*  1925  data  are  preliminary. 

Sources  of  data:    Mimeographed  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  (revised  figures). 


TABLE  10 

Weekly  Carlot  Shipments  of  Iceberg  Lettuce  by   State  of   Origin,   1925* 


California 

t 

Ariz. 

Colo. 

Idaho 

Wash. 

Others 

Week 
ending 

North- 
ern 
District 

Central 
District 

South- 
ern 
District 

Im- 
perial 

Valley 

Total 

Total 

Jan.   3 

8 

20 

5 

15 

11 

12 

16 

8 

5 

4 

4 

1 

7 

5 

42 

162 

251 

373 

410 

469 

483 

189 

162 

138 

244 

282 

179 

166 

124 

141 

110 

136 

97 

88 

110 

120 

110 

83 

212 

160 

392 

349 

433 

413 

400 

276 

231 

130 

135 

81 

51 

9 

31 
33 
19 
10 
13 
11 
7 

17 
4 
7 
9 
3 
4 

246 
408 
386 
447 
457 
552 
660 
770 
601 
673 
650 
962 
1,353 
1,015 
430 
53 

285 
461 
410 
473 
481 
575 
683 
795 
610 
685 
663 
968 
1,364 
1,020 
499 
357 
558 
685 
736 
701 
555 
204 
170 
141 
244 
287 
179 
166 
124 
141 
110 
136 
97 
88 
110 
120 
110 
83 
212 
160 
397 
350 
440 
415 
445 
406 
479 
360 
441 
275 
314 
307 

261 

223 

199 

164 

120 

110 

72 

47 

39 

64 

37 

30 

23 

33 

68 

246 

288 

114 

1 

546 

10 

684 

17 

609 

24 

1 

637 

31 

601 

Feb.  7 

685 

14 

755 

21 

842 

28 

649 

Mar.  7 

1 

749 

14 

700 

21 

2 

998 

28 

1,387 

Apr.  4 

1,053 

11 

27 

138 

292 

290 

306 

212 

71 

16 

8 

3 

567 

18 

4 
15 

22 
20 
20 

1 

603 

25 

846 

May  2 

799 

9 

750 

16 

705 

23 

2 

91 

106 

87 

102 

110 

95 

51 

34 

21 

58 

32 

11 

4 

9 

6 

557 

30 

8 
9 
9 

13 
4 

3 
3 

307 

June  6 

288 

13 

237 

20 

2 
4 
3 

361 

27 

5 

3 

3 

13 

28 

77 

165 

218 

225 

235 

292 

444 

349 

217 

240 

277 

127 

35 

28 

14 

7 

408 

July  4 

280 

11 

230 

18 

186 

25 

239 

Aug.  1 

2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

10 

11 

10 

10 

11 

52 

25 

30 

21 

2 

3 

335 

8 

387 

15 

335 

22 

330 

29 

415 

Sept.  5 

580 

12 

470 

19 

310 

26 

3 

4 

12 

19 

64 

120 

88 

49 

43 

20 

21 

6 

465 

Oct.  3 

1 
6 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
4 

453 

10 

2 

1 

4 

1 

11 

38 

98 

81 

55 

21 

9 

3 

594 

17 

432 

24 

3 
1 

34 

92 

150 

149 

231 

142 

96 

33 

565 

31 

572 

Nov.  7 

544 

14 

460 

21 

527 

28 

23 
154 
383 
417 

202 

404 

Dec.  5 

20 

31 

158 

265 

616 

12 

4 
3 

1 

668 

19 

734 

26 

510 

*  1925  data  are  pr.eliminary. 

t  The  Northern  District  of  California  includes  the  territory  north  of  a  Hne  extending  in  a  general 
easterly  direction  from  San  Francisco  Bay;  the  Central  District  includes  the  territory  between  this  line 
and  the  Tehachapi  Pass;  and  the  Southern  District  includes  the  remainder  of  the  state  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  Imperial  Valley.  The  exact  boundaries  of  these  four  districts  may  be  obtained  from  the 
Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  San  Francisco. 

Sources  of  data:  Compiled  from  Weekly  Summary  of  Carlot  Shipments  (mimeographed),  issued 
weekly  by  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


47 


TABLE  11 

Carlot  Shipments  of  Lettuce,  California  by  Counties,  1920-1925 


County 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924* 

1925* 

0 

2,940 

0 

3,991 

0 

37 

8 

278 

33 
1 
1 

13 
0 

11 
0 
0 

45 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
3,669 

0 
5,554 

0 

73 

18 

219 

65 

2 
25 
14 

0 
153 

0 

3 
37 

0 

0 

0 
18 

0 
4,806 

168 
3,369 

154 
61 
11 

185 

106 
37 
38 
58 
35 

133 

163 
13 

304 

10 

0 

70 

23 

3 

7,994 

94 

3,454 

877 

68 

56 

275 

163 

59 

66 

41 

37 

275 

704 

105 

542 

21 

57 

208 

14 

76 

9,297 

84 

2,687 

1,265 

142 

15 

313 

171 

214 

8 

70 

0 

280 

1,547 

385 

1,118 

13 

39 

710 

46 

55 

Imperial                            .    ... 

10,302 
122 

Kern 

Los  Angeles 

1  709 

Monterey 

3,581 

Orange 

80 

Riverside 

50 

Sacramento 

381 

San  Benito 

159 

San  Diego 

149 

San  Francisco                   .    .. 

9 

33 

San  Luis  Obispo 

222 

San  Mateo 

248 

Santa  Barbara 

2,552 

Santa  Clara 

138 

Santa  Cruz 

1,247 

Stanislaus 

30 

Tulare 

35 

Ventura 

388 

Others.. . 

118 

Total     . 

7,358 

9,850 

9,744 

15,113 

18,480 

21,608 

*  1924  and  1925  data  are  preliminary. 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1920-1923,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Statistical  Bui.  9:  29-33.  1925.  Years  1924- 
1925.  Compiled  from  the  Summary  of  Carlot  Shipments  of  Important  Fruits  and  Vegetables  in  Cali- 
fornia by  Homer  A.  Harris  (mimeographed),  issued  annually  from  the  Los  Angeles  office  of  the  Bureau 
of  Agricultural  Economics. 


48 


CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL   EXTENSION   SERVICE 


[CiRC.  5 


TABLE  12 

Monthly  Carlot  Shipments  of  Lettuce,  California  by  Counties,  1923-1925 


County 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total 

1923 

1,798 

7 

123 

1 

1,988 

3 

48 

3,015 

8 

176 

576 

45 

845 

19 

24 

4 

9 

1 

3 

622 

142 

111 

26 

12 

8 

616 
16 

631 

37 

72 

4 

7,994 

Kern 

12 

892 
42 
65 
53 
28 
20 
7 
34 
20 
45 
96 
96 

94 

Los  Angeles 

62 

77 

6 
45 

7 
187 

42 

153 

3 

39 

3,454 

174 

877 

Sacramento 

275 

35 

2 

47 

120 

3 

70 

1 

1 

163 

San  Diego 

9 

1 

3 

107 

102 

10 

57 

59 

4 

37 

San  Mateo 

100 

156 

4 

63 

5 

15 

13 
56 
16 
34 

1 

58 
23 
117 

7 
7 

275 

Santa  Barbara.. 

5 
3 
1 
5 
1 

4 

3 

17 

41 

72 

117 
23 

107 
41 

28 

52 

704 

Santa  Clara 

105 

Santa  Cruz  

1 

30 
13 
27 

542 

Ventura 

208 

Others    . 

4 

26 

14 

34 

2 

326 

Total    

1,953 

2,043 

3,227 

1,659 

1,410 

430 

395 

507 

296 

450 

1,241 

1,502 

15,113 

1924* 

2,189 

4 

47 

7 

3,183 

2,433 
3 
14 

1,127 

19 

680 

3 

45 

17 

763 

235 

136 

51 

49 

3 
280 
105 
137 
198 
91 

365 
22 

580 

39 

95 

3 

48 

9,297 

Kern 

19 
561 
218 
36 
50 
37 

10 
346 

85 
320 
178 

92 

84 

16 
211 

34 

1 

78 

25 
332 

1 

38 

2 

20 
244 

85 
303 

39 
5 

2,687 

Montrey 

108 
4 

1,265 

313 

San  Benito 

1 

24 

171 

7 

71 

214 

San  Luis  Obispo 
San  Mateo 

.... 

54 
256 

71 
173 

24 

10 

93 

135 

11 

29 

0 

51 

89 
10 
17 

2 

49 

46 

9 

94 

2 

1 

280 

Santa  Barbara.. 

40 

111 
9 
11 

89 
102 

1,547 

Santa  Clara  

385 

1 

33 
180 
93 

1,118 

Ventura 

710 

Others 

1 

1 

11 

409 

Total 

2,256 

3,185 

2,461 

2,291 

1,952 

839 

380 

203 

280 

1,094 

2,065 

1,474 

18,480 

1925* 

1,782 
29 
59 

2,583 
12 
15 

4,050 
8 
8 

1,086 

19 

358 

306 

36 

44 

21 

8 

16 
441 

722 
46 
44 
76 
38 

16 
360 

29 

55 

350 

6 

116 

2 

0 

4 
138 

32 

87 

350 

136 

24 

78 

246 

365 

16 
22 
145 

7 
129 

0 

928 
4 
55 

45 

6 

426 

64 

298 

5 

0 

1 

8 

445 

495 

225 

16 

8 

21 

800 

30 

363 

131 

70 

10,302 
122 

Kern 

Los  Angeles 

1,709 

3,581 

381 

Sacramento  

159 

San  Diego 

16 

11 

1 

16 

9 

149 

222 

San  Mateo     

248 

2 

8 

144 
9 
132 
186 
153 

464 

31 

327 

132 

80 

362 
20 

156 
41 

28 

55 

1 
25 

4 
85 

2,552 

Santa  Clara     . 

138 

Santa  Cruz 

Ventura 

8 

5 

23 

3 
5 

26 

6 
8 
12 

26 
3 

21 
0 

1,247 
388 

Others 

410 

Total 

1,924 

2,663 

4,093 

2,502 

2,417 

934 

640 

505 

684 

1,831 

1,826 

1,589 

21,608 

*  1924  and  1925  data  are  preliminary. 

Sources  of  data:  Compiled  from  the  Summary  of  Carlot  Shipments  of  Important  Fruits  and  Vege- 
tables in  CaUfornia  by  Homer  A.  Harris  (mimeographed),  issued  annually  from  the  Los  Angeles  oflBce 
of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 


1926] 


LETTUCE 


49 


TABLE  13 

Carlot  Unloads  of  Lettuce  in  21  Cities,  by  Months,  1925 


City 


Jan. 


Feb. 


Mar. 


Apr. 


May- 


June 


July 


Aug. 


Sept. 


Oct. 


Nov. 


Dec. 


Total 


Atlanta 

Baltimore 

Boston 

Chicago 

Cincinnati 

Cleveland 

Denver 

Detroit 

Kansas  City 

Los  Angeles 

Minneapolis 

New  York 

Omaha 

Philadelphia... 

Pittsburgh 

Portland,  Ore.. 

St.  Louis 

St.  Paul 

Salt  Lake  City 
San  Francisco.. 
Washington 


15 

52 

105 

304 

66 

78 

39 

79 

46 

106 

45 

446 

18 

212 

86 

60 

87 

19 

17 

83 

29 


19 
55 
77 

283 
68 
70 
36 
69 
50 
95 
30 

605 
18 

234 
88 
48 

100 
22 
12 
84 
36 


25 
50 

126 

290 
51 
85 
45 

104 
58 

181 
49 

836 
13 

178 

108 
60 
98 
26 
24 
94 
42 


24 
77 

157 

383 
45 

101 
60 

122 
52 
92 
75 

939 
36 

318 

168 
80 

121 
34 
26 
40 
47 


26 

63 

105 

424 

36 

90 

60 

144 

31 

42 

57 

754 

18 

266 

118 

46 

41 

34 

24 

27 

36 


21 
13 
37 

315 
13 
71 
22 

123 
23 

125 
34 

130 
13 

116 

55 

3 

29 

11 

1 

23 


15 
82 
57 

350 
42 
62 
37 
74 
41 

191 
22 

723 
12 

213 

38 

1 

68 

7 


46 


17 
48 
91 

295 
43 
54 
78 
61 
37 

227 

21 

1,034 

19 

222 


50 


29 
78 
59 

325 
46 
59 
81 
67 
46 

163 
37 

803 
16 

223 
64 
10 
96 
6 
10 
1 
42 


23 

46 

63 

296 

40 

66 

27 

69 

48 

175 

32 

311 

19 

144 

56 

2 

62 

12 

4 

4 

29 


19 
48 
69 

311 
48 
56 
26 
35 
38 
47 
31 

363 
22 

138 
51 
13 
79 
18 
6 
21 


23 
55 
75 

324 
49 
73 
30 
88 
53 
32 
33 

540 
24 

186 
93 
44 

102 
18 
11 
36 
33 


256 
667 

1,021 

3,900 
547 
865 
541 

1,085 
523 

1,476 
466 

7,484 
228 

2,450 
974 
367 
954 
213 
154 
413 
424 


Sources  of  data:    Compiled  from  Unloads  of  Lettuce  in  Various  Markets  during  1925,  by  States  of 
Origin  and  Months,  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  unpublished  report,  April  22,  1926. 


TABLE  14 
Jobbing  Prices  of  Good  Quality  Iceberg  Lettuce,  Chicago,  by  Months, 

1920-JuLY,  1926 
(Dollars  per  crate) 


Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Average,  1920-1925 

3.70 

3.45 

3.75 

4.05 

3.70 

3.95 

3.95 

4.10 

3.70 

4.40 

4.00 

3.60 

1920    

3.90 
4.20 
3.70 
3.95 
2.45 
3.85 
3.50 

2.20 
3.20 
5.25 
2.90 
2.75 
4.45 
3.15 

2.35 
3.90 
5.70 
2.80 
3.65 
4.15 
4.00 

5.00 
4.80 
3.30 
2.85 
5.45 
2.85 
4.70 

4.00 
3.90 
2.60 
4.55 
3.65 
3.45 
4.45 

3.75 
4.30 
3.45 
4,45 
3.60 
4.00 
2.65 

3.25 
5.20 
3.15 
3.05 
4.65 
4.30 
3.80 

2.80 
5.20 
3.60 
3.80 
5.50 
3.70 

4.20 
3.15 
3.60 
3.25 
5.45 
2.45 

4.80 
3.65 
4.35 
4.50 
5.45 
3.70 

4.20 
3.75 
4.60 
3.65 
3.60 
4.25 

2.70 

1921                       

3.35 

1922    

4.50 

1923                      

3.15 

1924 

3  05 

1925                          

4.75 

1926 

Sources  of  data:  Months,  January  through  May  and  November  through  December,  1920-1923;  and 
January,  1924,  through  July,  1926,  compiled  from  daily  market  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics  and  its  predecessors,  issued  from  the  Los  Angeles,  El  Centro  and  San  Francisco  offices. 
Months,  June  through  October,  1920-1923,  compiled  from  Chicago  Daily  Fruit  and  Vegetable  Reporter 
(files  obtained  from  the  Stewart  Fruit  Company,  San  Francisco).  Monthly  prices  are  simple  average 
of  daily  prices  of  good  quality  lettuce.  Prices  are  for  Cahfornia  lettuce,  with  the  following  exceptions: 
Washington  lettuce,  June  through  October,  1920-1922;  and  July  and  August,  1923;  Colorado  lettuce, 
September  and  October,  1923. 


50  CALIFORNIA   AGRICULTURAL    EXTENSION    SERVICE  [CiRC.  5 


SOURCES   OF   CURRENT   INFORMATION    ON    LETTUCE 

Growers  interested  in  following  the  current  developments  in  the 
lettuce  industry  will  find  the  following  government  publications  of 
value : 

1.  Daily  market  reports  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 
issued  from  the  local  offices  at  El  Centro,  Los  Angeles  and  San  Fran- 
cisco give  carlot  shipments  made  each  day  from  the  producing  sec- 
tions; the  destinations,  diversions,  arrivals  and  supplies  on  the  main 
markets ;  the  quality  and  condition  of  receipts ;  and  prices  paid  at 
terminal  markets  and  at  points  of  origin.  These  reports  are  distri- 
buted free  by  mail  upon  request. 

2.  Crops  and  Markets,  published  weekly  by  the  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture,  contains  from  time  to  time  important 
information  concerning  the  lettuce  crop  and  markets.  In  addition  to 
news  articles,  the  United  States  lettuce  shipments  for  the  current 
week,  for  the  previous  week,  and  for  the  corresponding  week  last 
year,  together  with  the  total  shipments  for  the  current  season  to  date 
and  the  total  shipments  for  last  season  are  published  regularly.  The 
monthly  carlot  shipments  by  states  of  origin  for  the  current  month 
and  the  corresponding  month  in  previous  years  are  published  regularly 
in  the  Monthly  Supplement  to  Crops  and  Markets.  Crops  and 
Markets  may  be  obtained  from  the  Superintendent  of  Documents, 
Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.  C,  at  a  cost  of  $1  per 
year. 

3.  Estimates  of  acreage,  production,  yield  per  acre,  average  price 
paid  to  growers,  and  farm  value,  by  states,  for  a  number  of  years,  are 
published  in  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture  Yearbook  which 
is  issued  annually.  The  latest  year's  figures  appearing  in  the  Year- 
book are  preliminary  and  may  be  revised  in  the  following  Yearbook. 
The  revised  figures  together  with  the  next  year's  shipments  are  gen- 
erally published  in  the  Monthly  Supplement  to  Crops  and  Markets 
some  time  before  the  new  Yearbook  is  out.  For  example,  the  revised 
estimates  for  1924  and  the  preliminary  estimates  for  1925  were  pub- 
lished in  the  Monthly  Supplement  to  Crops  and  Markets,  December, 
1925,  p.  397. 

4.  A  summary  of  the  Imperial  Valley  Deal  is  prepared  annually 
by  the  local  representative  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics, 
El  Centro,  California.     Summaries  of  the  deals  in  other  states  are 


1926]  LETTUCE  51 

also  issued  by  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics.  These  sum- 
maries may  be  obtained  from  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

5.  Carlot  shipments  of  lettuce  from  California  by  shipping  points 
and  by  months  are  compiled  annually  by  the  local  representative  of 
the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  Los  Angeles.  These  reports 
may  be  obtained  from  the  Los  Angeles  Office  of  the  Bureau  of 
Agricultural  Economics. 

6.  Truck  Crop  Notes  issued  from  time  to  time  by  the  California 
Cooperative  Crop  Reporting  Service  gives  information  regarding 
acreage,  production,  etc.,  in  the  main  lettuce-producing  sections  in 
California. 


15j71-12,'26 


